A Study of The Adjustment of International Graduate Students at A

The Florida State University
DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
7-7-2003
A Study Of The Adjustment Of International

Graduate Students At American Universities,
Including Both Resilience Characteristics and
Traditional Background Factors
Jing Wang
Florida State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

Recommended Citation
Wang, Jing, "A Study Of The Adjustment Of International Graduate Students At American Universities, Including Both Resilience
Characteristics and Traditional Background Factors" (2003). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 1270.
This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact
lib-ir@fsu.edu.
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
A STUDY OF THE ADJUSTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL

GRADUATE STUDENTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES,
INCLUDING BOTH RESILIENCE CHARACTERISTICS
AND TRADITIONAL BACKGROUND FACTORS
By JING WANG
A Dissertation submitted to the

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2003
Copyright 2003
Jing Wang
All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Jing Wang defended
on July 7, 2003.
____________________________
Dale W. Lick
Professor Directing Dissertation
____________________________
Sande Milton
Outside Committee Member
____________________________
Terrence R. Russell
Committee Member
____________________________
Robert A. Schwartz
Committee Member
Approved:
________________________________________________________________
Carolyn D. Herrington, Chair, Department of Educational Leadership
and Policy Studies
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMETNS
I would like to express my deepest thanks and appreciation to my major professor,

Dr. Dale W. Lick. Without his vision, encouragement, advice, support, and help, I could
not have finished this paper. He encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D. instead of an EdD
degree, introduced to me to the concepts of change and resilience, taught me
Organization and Administrative theories, showed me how to do educational research,
led me through the whole research process, opened my vision through his advice,
patiently made contacts to make possible the data collection, carefully edited my paper,
and much more. He not only imparted knowledge but also encouraged the heart. He is the
best mentor and the greatest major professor.
My great thanks are also given to Dr. Sande Milton, from whom I learned how to use
SPSS, design survey questionnaires, do policy analyses, and much more. On top of these,
he taught me how to apply statistical methods to do the research. He patiently led me
through the data. His advice greatly shaped this paper.
I also like to show my great appreciation to Dr. Terrence Russell, who introduced
institutional research to me, and helped me to learn how to use national data to do
educational research. He provided me with background information on international
students, showed me how to use statistical methods and models to do the research, and
much more. His advice greatly enhanced this paper.
I am also very grateful to Dr. Robert Schwartz, who taught me how to do literature
review, and much more. The idea of doing the research on the adjustment issues of
international students was originated from him. His advice greatly improved this paper.
My thanks are given to Dr. Linda Hoopes, Amanda Gettler, and Alice Bailey at
ODR Inc., who generously provided me with Personal Resilience Questionnaire,
processed the resilience data for me, and answered many of my questions.
My thanks also go to Dr. John Porter, who generously provided his Michigan
International Student Problem Inventory, and allowed me to do some minor
modifications to his MISPI to suit the purposes of this study.
I would like to express my appreciation to the director of the International Center at
FSURoberta Christie, who sent out two emails to international students and
encouraged them to participate in my study. My thanks are also given to Mafe Brooks for
her help.
I would like to show my appreciation to Dr. William Fritz at Georgia State
University, who assisted with emails to international students and encouraged them to
participate in this study. My thanks are also given to Heather Housley-Fabritius for her
help.
Many thanks are given to those international students who participate in this study, to
several professors who helped answer my questions, and to many other people who
offered help.
My special thanks are given to my parents for their long-term and constant love and
care.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
ABSTRACT
xiii
Chapter
Page
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. METHODOLOGY
44
4. ANALYSES
56
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
200
APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Approval from the FSU Human Subjects Committee

Approval for Using PRQ from ODR Inc.
Approval for Using MISPI from Dr. Porter
Modified MISPI
Summary Table of Existing Research on Adjustment Related Factors
First and Second emails sent by the International Center at FSU
228
229
230
231
234
252
REFRENCES
255
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
260
iv
LIST OF TABLES
1. Dependent and Independent Variables for Multiple Regression Analyses
47
2. FSU Respondents Gender
58
3. FSU Respondents Original Places
58
4. FSU Respondents Marital Status
59
5. FSU Respondents Sources of Support
59
6. FSU Respondents Major
60
7. FSU Respondents Country of Origin
60
8. FSU Respondents Father's Education
61
9. FSU Respondents Mother's Education
61
10. FSU Respondents Average Age
62
11. FSU Respondents Previous International Experience and Professional Work

Experience
62
12. FSU Respondents Length of stay at Current University and in U.S.
63
13. FSU Respondents TOEFL and GPA
63
14. GSU Respondents Gender
64
15. GSU Respondents Community of Origin
64
16. GSU Respondents Marital Status
65
17. GSU Respondents Sources of Support
65
18. GSU Respondents Major
66
19. GSU Respondents Country of Origin
66
20. GSU Respondents Father's Education
67
21. GSU Respondents Mother's Education
67
22. GSU Respondents Average Age
68
23. GSU Respondents Previous International Experience and Professional Work

Experience
68
24. GSU Respondents Length of Stay at Current University and in the U.S.
69
25. GSU Respondents TOEFL and GPA Scores
69
26. Correlations Among Interval Variables (FSU)
71
27. Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU)
72
28. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU)
74
29. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU)
75
30. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU)
75
31. Tukey Analyses
76
32. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU)
77
33. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU)
78
34. One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education (FSU)
79
35. One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU)
80
36. One-way ANOVA for Major Fields of Study (FSU)
81
37. Summary of Significant Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and

Background Factors (FSU)
82
38. Correlations Among Interval Variables (GSU)
83
39. Independent Samples Test for Gender (GSU)
84
40. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (GSU)
85
41. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (GSU)
86
42. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (GSU)
87
43. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (GSU)
88
vi
44. Tukey Analyses
88
45. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (GSU)
89
46. One-way ANOVA for Father's Education (GSU)
89
47. Tukey Analyses
90
48. One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (GSU)
90
49. One-way ANOVA for Major (GSU)
91
50. Summary of Significant Relationship Among Resilience Characteristics and

Background Factors (GSU)
92
51. Correlations for Interval Variables (FSU and GSU)
93
52. Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU and GSU)
94
53. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU and GSU) 96
54. Independent Samples Test for Campus (FSU and GSU)
97
55. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU and GSU)
98
56. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU and GSU)
99
57. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU and GSU)
101
58. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU and GSU)
102
59. One-way ANOVA for Father's Education (FSU and GSU)
103
60. One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU and GSU)
103
61. One-way ANOVA for Major (FSU and GSU)
104
62. Summary of the Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Background

Factors (FSU and GSU)
106
63. Correlations Among Resilience Characteristics and Adjustment Problem
Areas (FSU)
107
64. Summary of Significant Pearson Correlations Among Resilience Characteristics

and Adjustment Problems (FSU)
109
vii

areas (GSU)
110
66. Summary of Significant Pearson Correlations Among Resilience

Characteristics and Adjustment Problems (GSU)
112

Areas (FSU and GSU)
114

Characteristics and Adjustment Problems (FSU and GSU)
115
69. Correlations Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background

Factors (FSU)
117
70. Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU)
118
71. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU)
120
72. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU)
122
73. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU)
123
74. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU)
124
75. One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU)
125
76. One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education (FSU)
126
77. One-way ANOVA for Major (FSU)
127
78. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU)
128
79. Summary of Significant Relationships Among Adjustment Problem

Areas and Background Factors (FSU)
129
80. Correlations Among Adjustment Problems and Background Factors (GSU)
130
81. Independent Samples Test for Gender (GSU)
132
82. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (GSU)
133
83. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (GSU)
134
84. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (GSU)
136
viii
85. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (GSU)
137
86. One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (GSU)
138
87. One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education (GSU)
139
88. One-way ANOVA for Major (GSU)
140
89. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (GSU)
141
90. Summary of Significant Relationships Among Adjustment Problem

Areas and Background Factors( GSU)
143
91. Correlations Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors

(FSU and GSU)
144
92. Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU and GSU)
146
93. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU and GSU) 148
94. Independent Samples Test for Different Campuses (FSU and GSU)
150
95. ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU and GSU)
152
96. ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU and GSU)
153
97. ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU and GSU)
155
98. ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU and GSU)
156
99. ANOVA for Fathers Education (FSU and GSU)
157
100. ANOVA for Major (FSU and GSU)
158
101. ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU and GSU)
159
102. Summary of Significant Relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas

and Background Factors (FSU and GSU)
161
103. Coefficients Relating to Admission and Selection Problem Area
163
104. Model Summary with Fathers Education Entered Last
164
105. Coefficients Relating to Orientation Service Problem Area
165
ix
106. Model Summary with Country of Origin Entered Last
166
107. Coefficients Relating to Academic Record Problem Area
166
108. Coefficients Relating to Social and Personal Problem Area
167
168
169
111. Coefficients Relating to Living and Dining Problem Area
169
170
171
114. Coefficients Relating to Health Service Problem Area
171
115. Coefficients Relating to English Language Problem Area
173
116. Model Summary with Sources of Support Entered Last
174
117. Coefficients Relating to Student Activity Problem Area
174
175
119. Coefficients Relating to Financial Aid Problems Area
176
177
121. Coefficients Relating to Placement Service Problem Area
178
179
123. Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems (I)
179
124. Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems (II)
180
125. Coefficients Relating to Admission and Selection Problem Area
181
182
127. Coefficients Relating to Academic Record Problem Area
182
128. Coefficients Relating to Social-Personal Problem Area
184
185
185
131. Coefficients Relating to Living and Dining Problem Area
186
187
133. Coefficients Relating to Health Service Problem Area
187
134. Coefficients Relating to Religious Service Problem Area
189
135. Coefficients Relating to English Language Problem Area.
190
136. Model Summary with Sources of Support Entered Last
191
137. Coefficients Relating to Student Activity Problem Area
191
192
139. Coefficients Relating to Financial Aid Problem Area
193
140. Model Summary with Father s Education Entered Last
194
141. Coefficients Relating to Placement Service Problem Area
194
195
143. Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems,

Using Z-scores for Resilience Characteristics (I)
196
144. Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems,

Using Z-scores for Resilience Characteristics (II)
196
145. Coefficients Relating to Adjustment Problems
197
198
198
148. Summary of Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and

Background Factors for FSU Respondents
200
149. Summary of Relationship Among Resilience Characteristics and

Background Factors for GSU Respondents
201
xi
150. Summary of the Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and

Background Factors for FSU and GSU Respondents
202
151. Summary of the Overlapping Correlations Among FSU Responses and the
Combined FSU and GSU Responses
203
Characteristics and Adjustment Problems for FSU Respondents
205

Characteristics and Adjustment Problems for GSU Respondents
206

Characteristics and Adjustment Problems for the Combined FSU
and GSU Respondents
207
155. Summary of the Overlapping of Significant Pearson Correlations

Among Resilience Characteristics and Adjustment Problems
between FSU results and FSU and GSU results.
208
156. Summary of Relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas

and Background Factors for FSU Respondents
209
157. Summary of relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas

and Background Factors for GSU Respondents
210
158. Summary of Relationships Among Adjustment Problem

Areas and Background Factors for Combined FSU and GSU Respondents
211
159. Summary of Overlapping Correlations Among Adjustment Problem

Areas and Background Factors Between FSU and FSU and GSU
Data Results
212
160. Comparison of Findings from this Study with Those from the Literature
Review
216
161. Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems

(Set One)
218
162. Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems

(Set Two)
219
163. Summary of Predicting Variables for Adjustment Problems (Set Three)
220
xii
ABSTRACT
This research related to the adjustment of international graduate students who study
at American universities. The purpose of the study was to explore relationships among
resilience characteristics and background factors, determine relationships among
resilience characteristics and adjustment problem areas, evaluate relationships among
adjustment problem areas and background factors, and identify resilience characteristics
and background factors which significantly predict adjustment. Based on the statistical
results of this study, recommendations were made to international graduate students and
universities toward the improvement of international student adjustment in American
universities.
Two instruments were used for this study: the Personal Resilience Questionnaire and
the Michigan International Student Problem Inventory. All together 289 responses were
gathered from international students from two universities.
Correlation studies, t-tests, One-way ANOVA, Tukey analyses, and multiple
regression analyses were used. Statistical analyses revealed that: resilience characteristics
were moderately correlated with background factors, highly negatively correlated with
adjustment problem areas, and better correlated with adjustment problem areas than were
background factors. Resilience characteristics, Gender, Fathers Education, and Country
of Origin were strong predictors for adjustment problems with resilience characteristics
being the strongest predictors. Among resilience characteristics, the strongest predictors
were Focused and Flexible: Thoughts, followed by Positive: Yourself.
Based on the research findings, it appears that resilience characteristics are central to
the adjustment of international students, while traditional background factors may only be
secondary. International students should try to enhance their resilience and universities
should provide help to them to do so.
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
With more than half of the colleges and universities in the world, the U.S. had the
largest single presence of foreign students in any nation (Spaulding & Flack, 1976, p.2).
The sheer number of international students studying in the U.S. has been increasing
dramatically throughout the years, with 216,000 in 1974-1975 to 582,996 in 2001-2002.
International students usually represent the well-educated people from other countries.
The large number and the important roles of international students warrant our attention.
It is especially important to study them in todays world of globalization. Research on
international students during their stay in the U.S. constitutes an important area. Smooth
adjustment is critical to the future success of international students who encounter a
totally new environment when they come to study in the U.S. The purpose of this
research is to study factors that contribute to adjustment of international students studying
in the United States.
Benefits of Having International Students
The benefits of having international students in the U.S. are in several areas. First,
from educational, social and cultural, and international relationship aspects, Tomkovick
et al. (1996) gave an overview of the benefits of international student involvement in
American higher education. International students enhance the academic excellence of
the colleges and universities they attend because they are well prepared academically,
and they enrich the cultural diversity of campuses with their home culture and ethnic
experiences. Furthermore, their enrollment benefits international cooperation.
Second, from an economic aspect, international students bring substantial money into
the U.S. According to the Opendoors Report, Department of Commerce data describe
U.S. higher education as the country's fifth largest service sector export (Opendoors,
2002). Nearly 75% of all international student funding comes from personal and family
sources or other sources outside of the United States (Opendoors, 2002). The outside
funding includes personal and family sources, as well as home governmental or
university funding. The international tuition and other expenditures paid by international
students contributed $12 billion to the U.S. economy during 2001-2002 year (Opendoors,
2002). Also, international students may reduce operating expenses by accepting oncampus jobs, such as research or teaching assistants (Tomkovick, et al., 1996).
Third, international students are important for the U.S. in the fields of science and
engineering. Based on the statistical data gathered from national surveys, the National
Science Foundation published a report on Science and Engineering Indicators 2002.
According to the report, in 1999 international students earned more than 25% of the total
U.S. doctorates in science and engineering. In addition, more than half of the younger
foreign students who have earned S & E [Science and Engineering] doctorates in the
United States stay in the U.S., and this trend has changed little over time
(http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm).
Adjustment Issues for International Students

Adjustment issues for international students constitute a significant area of study.
Because of the importance of international students, as well as the benefits attributed to
their stay in the U.S., it is worthwhile to look at their difficulties. In general, international
students face difficulties in cultural experiences, in academic study, and in daily life
activities. The difficulties faced by international students adversely influence their
academic achievement and life experience. If they cannot overcome the difficulties and
adjust successfully, they are unable to reach their pre-set goals. Adjustment is crucial to
their success while studying in the U.S. Campus administrators have become more and
more aware of the significance of smoothing adjustment process due to the potential
impact of adjustment problems on student attrition (Hurtado et al as cited in Al-sharideh
& Goe, 1998, p.700).
Researchers found that individuals differ greatly in adjusting to a new culture. Some
individuals are at ease adjusting while others may not be able to adjust at all. Besides
background factors such as age and English proficiency level, personal variables such as
communication skills, interpersonal skills, and flexibility also play significant roles in
adjustment. The knowledge of what personal characteristics contribute to adjustment is
important, as it will guide students to make better adjustments. Although Hannigan
(1990) summarized these adjustment-related personal variances under traits, attitudes,
and skills, there has been no overarching framework for these variables. In order to find a
framework, it is important to identify the major elements involved in cultural adjustment.
Coming from different cultures, international students face changes in every aspects
of life, including changes in geographical location, weather conditions, food, language,
culture habits and behaviors. Hence, the major task in cultural adjustment is to cope with
change in many aspects of life. Researchers such as Conner (1992) found that resilience
characteristics are essential characters to successfully deal with change. By studying the
successful human behavior patterns during the process of change, one is in a better
position to make adjustments. Resilience characteristics may be used as a possible
overarching framework for these personal variables.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of the study is to explore relationships among resilience
characteristics and background factors, determine relationships among resilience
characteristics and adjustment problem areas, evaluate relationships among adjustment
problem areas and background factors, and identify resilience characteristics and
background factors which significantly predict adjustment. Based on the statistical results
of this study, recommendations will be made to international students to help ma ke better
adjustment.
Basic Methodology
The study will employ quantitative methods. Two survey questionnaires and
demographic questions will be used to identify adjustment problems, resilience
characteristics, and background factors.
Significance of this Study
Adjustment issues of international students have been studied quite extensively, yet
there are still gaps in this area. First of all, although adjustment is a change process and
resilience characteristics are important indicators of ones ability to cope with change,
international students have never been studied from the perspective of change by using
the concept of resilience. Consequently, such a study of the relationships among
resilience characteristics and adjustment factors may turn out to be significant. It is also
important to explore the relationships among resilience characteristics and background
factors to better understand resilience characteristics relative to international graduate
students adjustment.
Second, although adjustment problems have been correlated with background factors
such as age, gender, marital status, etc., conflicting findings sometimes are yielded. It is
important to further explore the relationships among adjustment and background factors.
Third, it is important to identify the joint effects of both resilience characteristics and
background factors on adjustment. With such knowledge, it may be possible to focus on
significant factors and characteristics to better assist in the adjustment of international
graduate students. In summary, this research will use different statistical methods to
study adjustment factors, attempting to bridge the above-mentioned gaps.
Resilience Characteristics
Resilience characteristics are introduced in the study of adjustment issues of
international students for the first time in this paper. International students experience
major change when they come to the U.S. to pursue their studies. They are uprooted from
their familiar environments and support networks, and are put into a new and
dramatically different culture and environment. How do they manage this major change
in life? What characteristics in them determine successful management of such change?
Theories and study results on change could be useful to this study.
Daryl Conner is an expert in studying change. His study of resilience was originated
from the corporate world. Now, resilience characteristics are successfully used elsewhere
to help organizations and individuals make transitions. He established ODR, Inc.
(Organizational Development Resources) to study human resilience in organizational
settings (Conner, 1992, p.6) in 1974 in Atlanta. ODR used information from different
fields such as psychology, organizational behavior, and statistical analysis to thoroughly
study resilience. According to Conner (1992), resilience is a critical component in
dealing with change. He found that resilient people remain calm in the process of change,
spring back after difficulties, and become stronger after change.
Conner (1992) found that resilience consists of a series of traits. Conner concluded
that resilient people are positive about life and about themselves, flexible in thoughts and
in social relations, focused, organized, and proactive. These seven resilience

characteristics will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. This study will try to
determine the relationships among resilience characteristics and various background
factors and among resilience characteristics and adjustment problem areas.
Combinations of Resilience and Factors to Predict Adjustment Problems
In order to identify specific problems of international students with different
demographic features and characteristics, resilience characteristics and traditional
background factors will be used to predict adjustment problems. In general, this study
will provide a good picture of adjustment problem areas of current international students
in relation to different background factors and resilience characteristics.
Direct Application of the Study Results
This study should also serve as a bridge among the study of international students
and campus practices, rules, regulations and policies. Although adjustment problems of
international students have been studied quite extensively, results of this study will add a
new understanding of adjustment issues by adding resilience characteristics. Also by
identifying significant factors, it is possible to better aid students to adjust by focusing on
these significant factors to design programs and create campus rules and policies.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is organized in the following way. First, international students are
described as a whole. Second, a theoretical framework for the study is provided. Coming
from different countries, international students experience major cultural differences and
have to make serious adjustments to become successful in their studies in the U.S.
Culture shock is a focal point for the adjustment of international students. At the present
time, adjustment to culture shock is viewed as a transitional process, and as a normal
response to change. This theoretical framework leads to the introduction of resilience
characteristics in the study of adjustment of international students. Third, research on
problems faced by international students is reviewed from three areas: difficulties in
encountering a new culture, in academic studies, and in daily life activities. Fourth,
adjustment of international students is summarized into social adjustment and academic
adjustment. Fifth, adjustment related factors are explored. These factors include
resilience characteristics, age, length of study, gender, country of origin, marital status,
English proficiency level, sources of support, major fields of study, parental educational
background, perceived program relevance and quality, academic level, college size, predeparture knowledge about the United States, use of student services, living arrangement,
employment at home, previous international experience, national status accorded, and
orientation.
International Students
In this section, background features of international students are provided to describe
international students as a whole. Such features change over time. For example,
previously, Japanese students represented the largest number in the United States while
now Indian students do. Also, changes in demographic features of international students
and world economic conditions lead to changes in international student study. Hence, it is
important to know the most recent demographic features of international students and to
update relevant research.
Demographic Features of Current International Students
The Opendoor Report on the basis of 2001-2002 data provides statistical data of
current international students, including their total number, places of origin, sources of
support, areas of study, and academic levels. During the academic year of 2001-2002,
there were a total of 582,996 international students from all over the world studying in
the United States. In terms of places of origins, Asian students constituted over half of the
international student body in the U.S. (56%), followed by European students (14%), Latin
American students (12%), Middle Eastern students (7%), African students (6%), and
North American and Oceania students (5%). The five leading countries (or regions) with
the most international students in the U.S. were India, China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
Dominant sources of support were from personal and family saving (68%), followed by
support from U.S. colleges and universities (21%). The most popular fields of study for
international students were business and management, engineering, mathematics and
computer sciences. In terms of academic level, graduate students (264,749) outnumbered
undergraduate students (261,079) by a narrow margin. The majority of undergraduate
students (81%) rely on personal and family financial sources while a smaller percentage
of graduate students (52%) rely on personal and family sources.
The Opendoors Report also provides information on gender distribution and major fields
of study by gender. According to the 1997-1998 data, the total number of male students
significantly outnumbered female students. Nations of South Asia, the Middle East and most
parts of Africa sent more men than women; while nations from Europe, North America,
Australia and most of Asian sent similar number of men and women. Limited number of
countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Jamaica, Bulgaria and Trinidad and Tobago sent more
women than men. For international female students, most of them majored in the arts,
humanities, education, and health sciences. International male students are more likely to
choose engineering, agriculture and business as their majors.
Information is also available concerning the doctorate recipients among international
students. According to the Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities:
Summary Report 1999
(http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/studies/sed/sed1999.htm)from July 1, 1998
through June 30, 1999, a total of 41,140 doctorate degrees were rewarded. Among all the
doctorate recipients who indicated their citizenship (94.8% of the total), 23.3% of the
doctoral degrees were earned by people with temporary visa status, that is, international
students. Seventy one percent of all doctorate degrees awarded to international students
were concentrated in engineering, physical sciences, and life sciences, with life science as
the most popular field. Leading foreign countries or regions with the most doctorate
recipients were P.R.China, India, Korea, and Taiwan. Students from these countries
(regions) received more than 13% of all doctorate degrees granted in 1998 and 1999.
The above descriptions show that international students are a very heterogeneous
group of students. However, it is still possible to make some generalizations about them on
the basis of data over the past years. More than half of todays international students come
from Asia. They are likely to major in business, engineering, mathematics, and computer and
information science. The majority of them get support from personal and family savings.
International graduate students outnumber undergraduate students and international male
students outnumber international female students. And they earn about a quarter of the
overall doctorate degrees.
Foreign Students Versus International Students
In earlier literature, the term foreign students was frequently used. With the trend of
globalization, foreign students are more and more viewed from a global perspective. Hence,
in later literature, the term international students became dominant. International students
are defined as individuals who temporarily reside in a country other than their country of
citizenship in order to participate in international educational exchange as students (Paige,
1990 as cited in Lin & Yi, 1997). In this paper, foreign students and international students are
interchangeable. Both terms are used to be in conformity with the original literature.
International Students Versus American Students

Coming from different cultural backgrounds, international students generally encounter
more problems than American students (Shahmirzadi, 1989). Nonetheless, it is also
important to see the similarities among international and American students. Walton and
Johnson (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) held the belief that foreign students be studied
primarily as students, and only secondarily as foreign (p. 18). Walton also emphasized the
need to study foreign students within the context of the total student and environment
(p.17). Summarizing major research, Spaulding and Flack (1976) also pointed out that:
Overall, however, similarities among groups of foreign students tend to outweigh the
differences and, in some studies, foreign students display more similarities to their
American counterparts than differences, suggesting that many problems arise because
they are students rather than because they are foreign. (p.74)
It is beneficial to hold a balanced view in this respect. It is important to study
international students from the context of the university environment, and certain student
development theories generated from American students may also be applicable to
international students. However, foreign students have unique problems and concerns. This
paper will both study the unique problems of international students and incorporate existing
theories on American students into the study of international students.
Adjustment Terms and Concepts
Adjustment. After reviewing the literature in the field, Hannigan gave the following
definition about adjustment. Adjustment can be conceptualized as a psychosocial concept
which has to do with the process of achieving harmony among the individual and the
environment. Usually this harmony is achieved through changes in the individuals
knowledge, attitudes, and emotions about his or her environment. This culminates with
satisfaction, feeling more at home in ones new environment, improved performance, and
increased interaction with host country persons (Hannigan, 1990, p.91).
Adaptation. Hannigan (1990) also gave the following definition about adaptation.
Adaptation encompasses cognitive, attitudinal, behavioral, and psychological changes in an
individual who lives in a new or foreign culture. These changes result in the individuals
movement from uncomfortableness to feeling at home in the new environment(p.91).
Acculturation. Acculturation is defined as those changes set in motion by the coming
together of societies with different cultural traditions (Sills as cited in Hannigan, 1990,
p.92). In this paper, the above three terms of adjustment, adaptation, and acculturation are
used interchangeably.
Culture Shock. Defined by Oberg, culture shock describes the anxiety resulting from
not knowing what to do in a new culture (as cited in Pedersen, 1995, p.1).
Sojourner. A sojourner is defined as a person who makes a temporary stay in a new place
(Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001).
Immigration
A relevant topic to adjustment issues is immigration. Spaulding and Flack (1976)
summarized the general trend that:
Older students, those with strong family and cultural ties to their home countries, those
sponsored by their home government, and those from higher socio-economic strata are
less likely to remain abroad. On the other hand, those who begin to study abroad at a
young age, those who pursue doctoral degrees, those who specialize in professions for
which there is continuing demand in developed countries, and those who are cultural or
political dissidents are more likely to remain abroad. (p. x)
From the above quotations, it might be inferred that although adjustment and
immigration might be indirectly related, they may have quite different direct relationships.
The focus of this study is, in stead, the adjustment of international graduate students.
Theoretical Framework
International students cannot escape from cultural shock and change during their studies
in the United States. Hence, theories on cultural shock and change constitute relevant
theoretical frameworks of this study.
Culture Shock and Adjustment
From the literature, it was found that many adjustment problems are associated with
culture shock. For example, Pedersen (1995) pointed out that the phrase culture shock
was first used by Kalvero Oberg to describe the anxiety resulting from not knowing
what to do in a new culture (p.1). According to Pedersen culture shock is the process of
initial adjustment to an unfamiliar environment (p.1). Pedersen also pointed out that
culture shock is a normal response to change comparable to adaptations made by people
in the face of radical changes in life. Among the several theories describing adjustment,
Pedersen categorized different adjustment theories into two models: a disease model and
a growth model.
Under the disease model, adjustment is viewed negatively. Pedersen reviewed
Furnhams eight theories that viewed culture shock as deficits, Stephans description of
culture shock within a group, and Juffers explanations of culture shock which focused on
negative aspects. Under the growth model, culture shock is not viewed negatively;
rather, it is viewed as a learning and growing process. Pedersen pointed out that it was
important to balance the two perspectives.
Although there are different theories explaining culture shock, there are similar
approaches to deal with it. For example, the pain of culture shock can be dealt with by
letting people know that culture shock is likely to cause stress and discomfort, by
providing reassurance and support to maintain their personal self-esteem, by allowing
time for adjustment, by providing the knowledge of adjustment patterns, by listing the
symptoms of culture shock, by providing an understanding that success at home does not
guarantee a successful adjustment in a new culture, and by preparing the people for the
new culture (Coffman & Harris, as cited in Pedersen, 1995). In particular, preparation
might include language study, learning about the host culture, stimulating situations to be
encountered, and spending time with nationals from the host culture before traveling
there (Pedersen, 1995, p.10).
In summary, the knowledge of culture shock, the emotional preparation for the pain,
and support help a person to deal with culture shock. Support patterns will be further
explored in the following.
Since culture shock is a normal response to change (Pedersen, 1995), it is relevant
to introduce human resilience characteristics in the following sections which are related
to change. Resilient people are able to learn and grow as they go through changes.
Personal Differences in Making Adjustment
Research recognized individual differences in making adjustment. With different
attitudes, skills, and traits, individuals vary greatly in their ability to adjust in a new
culture. Hannigan (1990) summarized the roles of attitudes, skills, and traits in making
efficient adjustment. He found that the following were conducive to adjustment:
communication ability, organizational ability, competence in ones content area, ability to
deal with stress, positive attitude toward the host culture, patience, tolerance, courtesy,
persistence with flexibility, energy, self-confident maturity, and self-esteem. Traits
negatively related to adjustment include perfectionism, rigidity, dogmatism,
ethnocentrism, dependent anxiety, task-oriented behavior, narrow-mindedness, and selfcentered role behaviors (p.107).
There are also some existing questionnaires, such as the Overseas Assignment
Inventory, which measures an individuals potential in intercultural adjustment. (Moran,
Stahl, & Boyer International as cited in Aydin, 1997). The Overseas Assignment
Inventory measures the following characteristics: open-mindedness, respect for other
beliefs, trust in people, tolerance, personal control, flexibility, patience, social
adaptability, initiative, risk taking, sense of humor, interpersonal interest, spouse
communication, and expectations. With so many personal variables, a relevant question is
as follows: what is an overarching framework for these personal variables?
Since adjustment is a normal response to change, the abilities to cope with change
may be used as an overarching framework for change.
Adjustment and Change
Some researchers discovered that change is central to culture shock and adjustment
and they tried to document adjustment stages. After interviews with 200 Norwegians
who stayed in the United States for varying length of time, Lysgaard (1955) noted that
adjustment was a time process. He broke the length of stay of the Norwegians into three
time periods and noted that adjustment went well in the initial six months, less well
among 6 and 18 months, and well again after 18 months. In summary, Lysgaards Ucurve hypothesis states that adjustment over time tends to follow a U-shape, with good
adjustment during the first 6 months, adjustment crisis among 6 and 18 months, and good
adjustment against after 18 months. Later on, Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) extended
the U-curve to the W-curve. The W-curve also included the adjustment when a sojourner
goes back home.
In existing studies of adjustment issues, although time is used as a factor to describe
change, it has not been made a central point. In this research, adjustment is explored from
a new prospectivechange, major change. Moving from another country to study in the
U.S. is a significant change for international students, involving alterations in many areas
such as cultural behavior, value systems, and language. Adjustment or adaptation occurs
when students try to cope with serious change to succeed in the new environment.
There are different ways to measure successful adaptation to change. An ODR
document (1995) explained that on the one hand successful adaptation to change can be
measured from positive outcomes such as interpersonal and task competence;
adaptability; self-esteem; scholastic attainment; superior coping styles; curiosity about
people, things, and ideas; the ability to love well (p.2). And on the other hand,
successful adaptation is more frequently measured by avoidance of a range of
symptoms such as health problems, depressed immune system, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (p.2). The ODR document (1995) indicated that although there
was no one best way to measure adaptation, resilience characteristics are important
indicators because resilient individuals are observed to have the ability to conquer the
negative events associated with major changes and become even stronger afterwards. As
a result, resilience characteristics appear to be important factors in achieving successful
adjustment, and provide a new theoretic framework for this study. In summary,
adjustment of international students to a new culture will be viewed as a learning and
growing process and will be studied from the perspective of change by using resilience
characteristics. Resilience characteristics may be used as an overarching framework to
study personal variance in the face of change.
Problems Faced by International Students
To better understand the adjustment process of international students, it is important
to understand the unique problems faced by them. Although international students are a
diverse group of students, it may still be possible to make some generalizations. Similar
to native students, they experience problems such as academic challenges, and the
stressors associated with transition to a new school or university (Furnham & Bochner
as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001, p.153). Different from American students
though, they may face unique problems in cultural experiences, in academic studies and
in daily life activities.
Differences and Difficulties in Cultural Encounters
The term culture shock is used to describe peoples anxious feelings when
entering into a new culture. Culture shock, originated from culture differences, may be
manifested in differences in value systems, communication patterns, sign and symbols of
social contact, and interpersonal relationships patterns.
Value Systems. As pointed out by Furnham and Bochner (1986), human values can
vary sharply from one to another, and value differences in cultures may cause a poor fit
among a sojourner and the new environment and may lead to distress and anxiety.
Noesjirwan (as cited in Furnham & Bochner, 1986) contrasted differences in social
values among Indonesia and Australia. Indonesians value group harmony and conformity,
while Australians value privacy, individuality, and an open, direct manner. Rooted in the
western culture, the American culture bears great resemblance with the Austrian culture.
10
International students from cultures that value harmony and conformity rather than
privacy and individuality can feel uneasy in the different culture.
Communication Barriers. Communication patterns of different cultures are
manifested in the different degree of explicitness and directness of verbal communication
and different use of non-verbal communication. As regards to verbal communication,
cultures differ greatly from each other in how much they rely on verbal messages to
convey meaning. Hall (1976) pointed out that linguistic codes (words, phrases, and
sentences) and contexts (background, preprogrammed responses of the recipient, and
situations) are used together to convey meaning. Hall distinguished among high-context
and low-context communication. In the high-context communication most of the
information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person (p.79); while in
the low-context, communication of information relies more on explicit linguistic codes.
Some cultures employ high-context communication style while others employ the lowcontext one. For instance, American culture belongs to low-context culture while Chinese
belongs to high-context culture. International students coming from a high-context
culture may sometimes feel they are not understood in the low-context culture of the U.S.
because they are not used to saying everything explicitly.
As regards to verbal communication, culture also differs in terms of how people use
words to convey meaning. Cultures differ in the extent to which people are direct or
indirect, how requests are made, and more importantly, how requests are denied or
refused (Furnham & Bochner, 1986, p.205). They gave an example of American Peace
Corps volunteers in the Philippines. The frank and direct style of the Americans were not
well received because the Philippines culture prefers indirectness and smooth personal
relationships. Another example was the use of yes and no. In the Western culture,
the distinction among the two words is clear. In many Asian countries, yes may mean
no. International students from an indirect culture may have a difficult time in making
themselves understood in the more direct U.S. culture.
As regards to verbal communication, culture also differs in terms of how people utter
words to convey meaning. Hall (1976) also pointed out cultural differences in the rhythm
of conversation and the pauses among words and phrases. International students may not
be familiar with how English is spoken and use their mother-tongue habit when they
speak English, which may cause confusion. The wrong rhythm of speaking English can
easily cause difficulties in understanding, and so cause difficulties in communication. For
example, international students who are accustomed to have longer pauses among
sentences may be cut short before they even finish.
Different cultures demonstrate different reliance on non-verbal behavior such as
facial expressions and gestures to express meaning and different tolerance on space and
body contact. Argyle (as cited in Furnham and Bochner, 1986) explained that non-verbal
communication helped to convey attitudes and emotions to support communication by
elaborating on what is said (p.206) and by making a conversation smoothly carried out.
Hall (1976) also noted that non-verbal systems communicate status, mood, gender, age,
state of health, and ethnic affiliation (p.144). Summarizing the work of Duncan, Ekman
and Fiesen, Mehrabian, and Soomer, Furnham and Bochner (1986) noted that non-verbal
communication includes the face, eyes, spatial behavior, bodily contact and gestures
(p.206).
11
Different cultures may also have different norms in non-verbal communication.

Shimoda, Argyle, and Ricci Bitti (as cited in Furnham & Bochner, 1986) found that
Japanese do not use negative facial expression (p.206). Watson (as cited in Furnham
and Bochner, 1986) found that Latin Americans gaze at each other frequently in the
course of a conversation while Europeans do so less frequently. Collett, Morris and
others (as cited in Furnham and Bochner, 1986) also noted the difference in the meaning
of gestures in different cultures. Hall (as cited in Gullahorn ) noted the spatial difference
(e.g., how far people stand apart) in the process of conversation among Latin Americans
and Americans. Argyle (as cited in Furnham and Bochner, 1986) noted that there are
culture differences in the tolerance of bodily contact. Cultures such as Latin American
and southern European are considered contact cultures while other cultures are noncontact cultures which tolerant body contact in only restricted circumstances.
International students from another culture may not be familiar with facial expressions,
gestures, and comfortable space used in the U. S. and may feel and cause discomfort in
their conversation with Americans.
Missing Signs and Cues. Oberg (1994) illustrated the importance of signs and cues in
daily life. He pointed out that:
Those signs or cues included the thousand and one ways in which we orient
ourselves to the situation of daily life: when to shake hands and what to say when we
meet people, when and how to give tips, how to make purchases, when to accept and
when to refuse invitations, when to take statements seriously and when not. These
cues, which may be words, gestures, facial expressions, customs, or norms, are
acquired by all of us in the course of growing up and are as much a part of our
culture as the language we speak or the beliefs we accept. All of us depend for our
peace of mind and our efficiency on hundreds of these cues, most of which we do not
carry on the level of conscious awareness. (p.165).
Coming from different cultures, international students may find familiar signs and cues
removed from daily life, which could be a source of anxiety and uneasiness.
Behavior Norms Towards Time. Argyle (as cited in Furnham and Bochner, 1986)
discussed differences in behavioral norms towards time in different cultures, which can
easily cause misunderstanding and uneasiness. Hall (1976) made distinctions among
monochromic time and polyphonic time. People from a monochromic time culture
tend to do one thing at a time and have strict schedules, while people from a polyphonic
time culture tend to do several things at one time and often do not have a schedule. For
example, American culture is a monochromic time culture where Latin America is
polyphonic time culture. Levine and Bartlett (as cited in Furnham and Bochner, 1986)
also gave an example of some cultures valuing punctuality and having faster pace of life
while others do not care about punctuality and have a slower pace of life. International
students from polyphonic time culture may feel overwhelmed by schedules and stressed
to meet the imposed deadlines.
Besides different concepts and actions relating to time, there are many other social
rules guiding the behavior of people under different social circumstances. International
students, especially from Eastern countries, may not be familiar with the social rules and
hence have difficulty in establishing satisfying social relations.
12
Personal Relations and Friendship Patterns. Personal relationships and friendship

patterns differ from place to place. International students may not know about proper
personal relationships in the U.S. such as appropriate faculty-student relationships,
friendship obligations, and role expectancies. In order to understand personal
relationships, the concept of power distance is relevant here. Power distance is defined as
the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations accept
the power is distributed unequally (Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p.419). Because power
distance differs from country to country, faculty- student relationships are different. In
countries with far power distance, more respect is shown to professors. Gullahorn
(1963) indicated that some international students may be confused by what they
perceive to be the lack of deference their American peers exhibit toward their professors
(p.36). Whats more, because of the power distance, international students may not know
how to approach professors for help.
Levin (1948) stated that friendships implied different intimacies and rights and
obligations under different cultures. Comparing American friendships with German
friendships, Levin noticed Americans made friends quicker and more broadly yet not as
deep. International students from cultures which imply deeper yet more slowly developed
friendships may not be accustomed to the American approach to friendships.
Adjustment Versus Cultural Distances. Culture differences can lead to isolation for
international students. The greater differences among the American culture and their
home culture, the more difficulties international students are likely to experience. Since
culture differences are the biggest among the East and West, students from eastern
countries may face the biggest difficulties in social encounters. Rising and Copp (as cited
in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) found that compared with international students from
western cultures, students from Asian countries had more difficulties in their adjustment
to new personal relationships. Hull (1978) found that Asian students, especially those
coming from China, Korea, and Japan, were easily isolated from American society.
As mentioned above, differences in cultures could be so profound that it is easy to
have anxiety in a new culture. Although culture shock was viewed as a disease at the
beginning, it is more viewed as part of a learning process now. According to Weaver
(1994), expectation of culture shock helps to reduce the pain in culture shock by
eliminating uncertainty. He provided the following strategies to cope with culture shock:
understanding symptoms of adjustment process, associating with host nationals and conationals who have gone through adjustment processes, learning the new culture and
improving language skills before departure.
In addition to difficulties with culture shock, international students may face
difficulties in their daily life activities, ranging from transportation to food. On top of
that, they may be troubled by homesickness and loneliness.
Difficulties in Daily Life Activities
Arriving from a different country, international students may face many difficulties
in their daily life. Coming to a totally new place, international students need to find
places to live, choose banks to deposit and withdraw money, find buses or buy cars to
move around, and apply for credits cards to do shopping. All these things occur at the
13
beginning of their stay and can consume a lot of time and effort for newly arrived
international students who may not be familiar with house renting procedures, credit
cards, banking systems, and even driving. On top of these difficulties, students may feel
uprooted from their normal support system, removed from familiar climate and food, hit
by stress, and aggravated by financial difficulties. Initial help to international students to
overcome daily difficulties is crucial to their adjustment.
Coping with the New Environment. Numerous studies have been conducted
concerning daily difficulties of intentional students. Pruitt (1978) noted that for African
students, initial difficulties lie in the following areas: climate, communication with
Americans, discriminationhomesickness, depression, irritability, and tiredness
(p.145). Adelegan (1985) summarized the literature concerning the difficulties faced by
African students in their adjustment and pointed out that some of the difficulties faced by
them are financial problems, psychological problems, food problems, and climatic
problems.
Sharma (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) found that for foreign students
studying in North Carolina, the most serious personal problems involved homesickness,
housing, sufficient funds, and appropriate companionship with the opposite sex (p. 4748). Bohn (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) completed a study on international
undergraduate students in 1957. Findings from this study showed that the main
difficulties in daily life included inability to use the English language, inability to adjust
to American food, inadequate housing during the summer months, and inability to adjust
to different climatic conditions (p.59). Milhouse and Cao (as cited in Ward, Bochner,
and Furnham, 2001) studied Asian students in the U.S. and found that the lack of
language skills was the most serious problem followed by financial problems. Clarke and
Ozawa (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) discovered that major adjustment problems
cited by international students were loneliness, homesickness, and lack of time for study.
Stafford, Marion, and Salter (1980) studied adjustment of international students at North
Carolina State University during the spring of 1978. They found that homesickness was
the most difficult area for international students followed by areas in housing, social
relations with the opposite sex, English proficiency, and finances.
Health Problems. Research showed that international students may face specific
health problems and may have great worry for their health. Zwingmann, Gunn and Gunn
(as cited in Altbach, 1991) listed some of the specific problems faced by foreign students:
They are generally unacquainted with the health care systems of their host countries,
they are sometimes afflicted with specific ailment not common in host country
populations, they are sometimes used to traditional medical treatment unviable in
the host country and in some instances they are unable to pay for needed medical
attention. (p.319)
Coming into a new environment, students face a lot of stress and worries, which may
also affect their health. Altbach (1991) further pointed out that worries for their health by
foreign students is an underlying problem.
In summary, studies of international students show that, in general, daily difficulties
stem from language deficiency, lack of money, lack of a social network to maintain
14
emotional balance and physical welling-being, and problems of adjusting to new

surroundings.
Difficulties in Academic Studies
Difficulties of international students also stem from unfamiliarity with the American
academic culture, practices within the academic community, and the lack of English
proficiency for academic purposes. Moreover, international students sometimes assume
new roles such as teaching or research assistants (TA and RA).
Academic Culture. Although American higher education is characterized by
diversity, it is still possible to characterize basic elements of academic culture. American
higher education was rooted in European traditions of higher education and later
developed along its own unique track. European belief of academic freedom and
Europeans critical spirit of questioning and inquiry formed the foundations of American
higher education. One fundamental purpose of American colleges and universities is to
create knowledge. In order to pursue knowledge, faculty and students are encouraged to
discuss and debate questions. Universities are places that equip students with knowledge,
skills and the ability and interests to pursue knowledge on their own.
Academic culture may be manifested in a lot of ways such as in expected roles of
faculty and students, faculty and student relationships, and seeking help from faculty
members. McCargar (as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) studied ESL (English
as a second language) students from different geographic regions such as Indonesia,
China, Korea, Japan, Thai, and Hispanic countries. He found that there are significant
discrepancies among their [international students] expectations and those of their
American teachersin classroom participation and in student-teacher relationships
(p.157). McCargar found that these students had expected their professors to act as
authority figures while American professors expect that international students will have
an internal locus of academic control (p.157). Libermans research on Asian students (as
cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) revealed similar findings. He showed that
international students were often critical of informality in the classroom, perceived lack
of respect for professors (p.157).
Pratt (as cited in Ward, Bochner, and Furnham, 2001) compared American and
Chinese educational systems and values. He noted that from the U.S. viewpoint, teachers
were regarded as facilitators and students were put at the center in the learning process. In
China, however, teachers acted as a transmitter of knowledge and role models. Robinson
(1992) pointed out that in the United States, the status difference among faculty members
and students may not be apparent, yet it may be expressed in subtle ways such as tone of
voices and choice of words. He also noted that students are expected to take advantage of
office hours to approach faculty for help. In summary, international students, unfamiliar
with American cultures, may not know how to establish comfortable relationships with
faculty members and how to take initiatives in seeking help from them.
Academic culture may also be manifested in the amount and approach to classroom
participation. International students may not feel comfortable with open discussion, and
they may not be familiar with rules of classroom participation. Ward, Bochner, and
Furnham (2001) noted that students from an individualistic culture tend to actively
15
participate in the classroom activities such as asking and answering questions and
engaging in debate. Students from collectivism culture on the other hand are less likely to
actively participate in class discussion. American classroom culture is an individualist
culture. International students from a collective culture may not be trained to actively
participate in classroom activities under the idea of avoiding open confrontation. Lack of
participation, however, adversely influences their scores. Besides the amount of
classroom participation, there are additional rules for American classrooms, such as how
to get the floor and how to maintain eye contact (Robinson, 1992), and it is highly
possible that many international students are not familiar or proficient with these rules.
Academic culture may also be seen in the learning experience. American higher
education values critical inquiry while higher education institutions in other cultures may
value rote memory. Having been accustomed to rote memory, some international students
may not feel comfortable with American instructional methods. Pratt (as cited in Ward,
Bochner, and Furnham, 2001) also pointed out that in China, the learning is focused on
acquisition of skills and knowledge rather than questioning.
Academic culture is manifested in every aspect of university life in the U.S., ranging
from the faculty-student experience to the learning experience. International students may
be overwhelmed by the differences in academic culture in the beginning and encounter
many problems related to the academic culture.
Organization of the Academic Community. American colleges and universities
provide all kinds of support to students, such as orientation programs, academic advisors,
and career centers. Since higher education systems in other cultures may provide support
system in different ways, international students may not know the existence of these
supporting agents and programs, and may not be able to take advantage of them.
Use of English for Academic Purposes. In addition to the unfamiliarity with
American academic culture, lack of English proficiency adds more difficulty for
international students. English is a major hurdle for some international students.
Sharmas study on foreign students attending North Carolina (as cited in Spaulding &
Flack, 1976) found that the most difficult academic problems were giving oral reports,
participating in class discussions, taking notes in class, understanding lectures and
preparing written reports (p.47). All of the problems listed by Sharma were related to
using English for academic purposes. Hull (1978) pointed out that compared to other
international students, Asian students rated their ability in academic English low in the
following categories: writing papers, reading speed, reading comprehension, speaking in
class, understanding discussion, and understanding lectures (p.60). Among listening,
speaking, reading and writing, writing was found as the most challenging aspect.
Angelova (1998) outlined the difficulties faced by international students in academic
writing tasks. Academic writing is a complicated process where several layers of skill
competencies are required for success: grammar and formatting, mastery of the American
rhetorical style, knowledge of text structure and organization, large technical vocabulary,
academic literacy, critical thinking abilities, and mastery of the conventions of a
discipline. These layers are difficult hurdles for international students.
Besides writing, understanding lectures and speaking in class are by no means easy
for international students. Dolan (1997) found from his study that the low language
16
proficiency levels of international students partially caused lack of participation of

international students in the classroom. Limited listening skills block their understanding
of classroom discussion, and weak speaking abilities hinder their contribution in
discussion.
International students, on the whole, face difficulty in using English for academic
purposes. Such difficulties are more severe for students in arts and humanities. Angelova
(1998) pointed out that international students studying in humanities had the biggest
problem in academic writing. For students in science and business communications,
writing was not as challenging, since conventional disciplinary discourses were relatively
well defined. Additionally, most of these students were required to take remedial classes
to improve their writing skills because of their writing deficiency. In contrast, students in
the humanities were faced with the task of intensive writing in complex genres with little
preparation.
Assuming TA and RA Roles. Apart from differences in educational practices and
difficulties in using English for academic purposes, international students sometimes
have to assume new roles. Hill and Lakey (1992) noted difficulties for foreign teaching
assistants (TAs). They had increased difficulties in their work setting because of their
relative unfamiliarity with the American academic culture, language deficiency, and
limited knowledge of pedagogical methods.
In summary, major academic difficulties faced by international students stem from
their unfamiliarity with the American academic culture, their insufficient knowledge of
the academic support units at campus, their lack of proficiency in employing English for
academic purposes, and their assumption of the new roles and activities.
In spite of the problems and difficulties in academic adjustment, Spaulding and
Flacking (1976) found that the following hypothesis was strongly supported by research:
academic performance of foreign students is equal to that of American students
(p.310). They also found that although certain difficulties are common to all foreign
students, students from substantially different backgrounds tend to have special types and
intensities of academic problems (p.51). Their findings led to the literature review of
adjustment problems for international students with different background factors in a
later session of this paper.
Adjustment
In this section adjustment of American college students is introduced first. Then the
adjustment of international students is discussed in detail.
Adjustment of American College Students
Much research has been done concerning the adjustment of American undergraduate
students to college life. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) studied the effects of college on
American undergraduate students and found college years are a time of student change
on a broad front (p.557). They found that students undergo development in academic
knowledge, cognitive skills and intellectual abilities, and moral judgment. They also
experience change in psychosocial areas, attitudes and values. Bringing so many changes
17
to ones life, college life is totally different from a students previous life. Gardner,
Jewler, and McCarthy (1996) listed some the problems an American student may face:
Fear of too much freedom or not being able to manage time
Anxiety over adjusting to a new environment
Fear that college will be too difficult
Homesickness
Lack of good study habits
Difficulty in understanding instructor
Fear of competition from brighter, younger, or older students
Fear of disappointing people or not getting their support
Problems with new living arrangements
Worry over choosing the wrong major
Shyness
The expectation that you may have to cheat to survive
Fear of being perceived by other students as a klutz
Problems in juggling work, family, and studies
Inability to pay for colleges (p5)
Comparing the above list with what was written in the previous section, one can see
that the adjustment of international students and adjustment of American students bear
some resemblance. American students also need to adjust in social life, in academic
studies and in daily life. It is only that international students face more problems such as
language problems and more restrictions in working. Whats more, international graduate
students do not have organized help to go through the adjustment in terms of First Year
Experience (FYI) classes.
Terenzini et al. (1994) showed how American students made the transition to college
life. They pointed out that for first generation students, college attendance often
involved multiple transitionsacademic, social, and cultural (p.63), among which the
academic transition was the most challenging. Friends who also went to college may act
as a bridge for the transition, whereas those without such a bridge may be hindered in
their transition. For first generation students, validation from faculty members was very
important.
Like first generation college students described in Terenzinis article (1994),
international students also have to go through transitions in their social and personal lives
and in their academic studies. They have to make adjustment to university life in the
United States. In general, adjustment for international students is a complex process
underlying many different aspects of their background, lives and studies, and these are
described further below.
Difficulties in cultural encounters and in daily life are related to the social adjustment
of international students while difficulties in academic studies are related to their
academic adjustment.
Social Adjustment
As mentioned before, international students are pressured by difficulties in cultural
encounters and daily life activities. One of the most efficient coping strategies is to
establish support networks which provide actual help and emotional support. Since
18
friends provide valuable support for international students, it is important to look at their
friendship patterns. Moreover, since adjustment is time related, it is important to study
international students social adjustment at different time period of their stay.
Friendship Patterns. Friendship networks of international students help to provide an
understanding of their social adjustment. Bochner et al. (as cited in Ward, Bochner, and
Furnham, 2001) put friendship networks of international students into three groups and
stated that different networks have different functions. The primary network for
international students is with students from the same country; the second kind of personal
network is with host nationals; and the third kind is with international students from other
countries. The function of the network with co-nationals is to provide companionship
and emotional support; the network with host nationals is to facilitate the academic and
professional aims of students (p.148); and the function with international students from
other countries is recreational and to provide mutual support.
Among these three kinds of networks, network with co-nationals is the primary one
for international students. International students tend to interact with co-nationals
(Spaulding and Flack, 1976; Bochner et al., 1976; 1977 as cited in Ward, Bochner, and
Furnham, 2001). This kind of network provides support to international students in all
around ways. Ward and Kennedy, Ward and Searle (as cited in Ward, Bochner, &
Furnham, 2001) found that the co-national network was associated with cultural identity;
and Searle and Ward, Ward and Searle (as cited in Ward, Bochner, and Furnham ,2001,
p.149) found that the network was related to international students psychological wellbeing. Besides providing emotional support and maintaining traditional values, Spaulding
and Flack (1976) also found that co-national groups were used to deal with new
environme nts. In spite of the benefits of co-national groups, over reliance on this kind of
network may isolate international students from campus social life (Spaulding and Flack,
1976).
A network of international students with host nationals provides international
students with many benefits. A greater amount of interaction with host nationals has
been associated with fewer academic problems (Pruitt, 1978), and fewer social
difficulties (Ward and Kennedy, 1993b) (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001, p.149).
Such networks are also associated with greater satisfaction in intercultural experiences
(Rohrlich & Martin, 1991), from the study of studying abroad programs of American
students), and greater happiness (Pruitt, 1978). However, international students are less
likely to make friends with host nationals (Bochner, Buker and Mcleod as cited in Ward,
Bochner, & Furnham, 2001).
Although cultural distance between home and host culture largely decides the ability
and willingness of international students to make friends with host nationals (Bochner et
al. as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001), a peer program is an effective way to
enhance interactions among international students and co-nationals (Westwood & Barker,
as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). A peer program also significantly
improves social adjustment of international students. (Abe, Tabot, & Geelhoed, 1998).
Pruitt (as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) noted that contact with the host
culture before arriving at the host country also increased the possibility of establishing
friendships among international students and co-nationals.
19
A network with other foreign students is also important. Such networks are mainly
associated with social support (Kennedy, 1999; Ward & Seale, 1991, as cited in Ward,
Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). More research, however, should be done on the patterns and
outcomes of this kind of network.
Co-national Groups and Social Isolation. Although all three kinds of networks
provide support and help for international students, they do not equally rely on these
three kinds of networks. Much research shows that international students associate most
frequently with fellow students from the same country, less frequently with American
students, and even less frequently with students from other cultures. Over relying on conational group, however, may lead to social isolation.
Social isolation for international students often happens when they rely on the
network of co-nationals and have few contacts with Americans. Spaulding and Flack
(1976) pointed out that social isolation was a well-documented phenomenon of foreign
students. In particular, Chinese, Indian, and Egyptian students (Kang, 1971; Gandhi,
1970; Hegazy, 1968, as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) tended to congregate with conationals. Hull (1978) also found that Asian students tended to share their
accommodations with their fellow nationals, had little socialization contact with
Americans, and did not socialize with Americans.
Social isolation may be influenced by other factors such as country of origin and size
of the American college. Spaulding and Flack summarized that foreign students from
Western industrialized countries tend to socialize more with Americans than do students
from non-Western and less-industrialized countries (p.30). Moreover, foreign students
attending small colleges (Selltiz, et al, 1956, Jammaz, 1972 as cited in Spaulding and
Flack, 1976) had more chances to socialize with Americans. Specially designed
programs and prior knowledge about the American culture help to reduce social isolation.
Even though many suggestions have been made to reduce social isolation by increasing
contacts with host nationals, the current idea is not to overlook the benefits brought about
by co-national groups and not to overly criticize social isolation.
The advantages of co-national groups outweigh its disadvantages. From the results of
their meta analysis, Spaulding and Flack (1976) summarized the benefits of co-national
groups.
Co-national groups apparently play a major role in easing the informal orientation of
new entrants, in offering advice on how to cope with problems, in serving as
temporary surrogates for the home society, in nurturing the saliency of home country
values and concerns, and in compensating for the social isolation of students who, as
individuals or groups, may be experiencing such isolation to varying degrees. (p.289)
Hence co-national groups should be encouraged rather than discouraged. And social
isolation may not be overly corrected as it may in fact be fulfilling a very important
psychological function if, indeed, students are able to find a co-national group within
which they are comfortable (Spaulding & Flack, p.74). The important thing is to strike a
balance among social isolation and the integration of international students into the
academic community of American colleges and universities.
Intracultural and Intercultural Friendships. Gudykunst (1985) compared close
intracultural and intercultural friendships. He studied international students at a
20
northeastern university and found that people who make friends in their home culture
also tend to make friends while in another culture (p.275). He also argued similarity of
cultural background is not a necessary prerequisite for friendship preference (p.281).
In summary, friend support is important for international students. Students should
try to establish friends with both co-nationals and host nationals. It is also important to
make international students realize that skills in making friends can transcend cultural
differences.
Time Factors in Adjustment. Numerous research efforts have been made to try to
connect adjustment with different periods of time, resulting in U-curve, W-curve and
adjustment stages.
Oberg (1994) described different adjustment stages. The first stage is the honeymoon
stage, when a sojourner is fascinated by the new environment. The second stage is a crisis
stage, when the sojourner experiences different kinds of difficulties such as housing and
transportation, and is angered by the indifferent attitudes of the native people. The third
stage is a recovery stage, when the sojourner accepts his or her situation as a newcomer.
The last stage is the complete stage, when the sojourner completely accepts the new
culture.
Lysgaard (1955) formed what he termed the U-curve hypothesis. Later on Gullahorn
and Gullahorn (1963) extended the U-curve to a W-curve. Much research has been done
to test the U-curve hypothesis and other adjustment stage-related theories. From their
meta analysis, Spaulding and Flack (1976) indicated that the U-curve hypothesis, apart
from placing due emphasis on the significant role of phases and the length of sojourn,
cannot be viewed as operating universally (p. 288). Although these adjustment stages
have not been proved by research (Spaulding & Flack, 1976), they suggest what
problems students at different periods tend to encounter, and that problems and
adjustment are most intensive at the initial period.
In summary, in order to deal with cultural and daily life problems, international
students form different kinds of friendship networks to gain support. Their need for help
is the greatest early in their stay.
Academic Adjustment
Dolan (1997) noted from his interview study that international students must not
only adjust to culture, but also adjust to unfamiliar academic styles as well (p ii).
Academic adjustment in general involves adjustment in a range of areas, including
adjustment to the academic culture, academic system, and language. Dalili (1982)
mentioned that adjustment at a university involved adjustment to new methods of
teachings, different behaviors of instructors, different expectations of students by
instructors, different methods of research, and different content of programs of study
(p.31). However, certain aspects of academic adjustment can be made quickly. Liberman,
Volet and Renshaw (as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) found that even after
only one semester their [Asian students] learning goals, evaluations of study techniques,
and appreciation of the learning process begin to converge with those of local students
(p.159). But, adjustment to other aspects may be more difficult. Dolan (1997) found that
21
the main areas of academic adjustment for international students were: classroom
participation, critical evaluation, and academic writing (p.130).
Factors Relating to Academic Adjustment. Many factors such as the English
proficiency level and academic culture at home are related to academic adjustment.
Dolan (1997) also found that language proficiency was fundamental to academic
adjustment. He concluded that a proficient English level, especially in writing, was basic
for academic success of international students. English proficiency will be furthered
explored in a later section.
Researchers also found that the academic adjustment of international students was
related to the academic culture of home countries. In a related study, Konyu-Fogel (1993)
discussed that the greater the differences among the educational system of the subjects
home country relative to the U.S., the more academic adjustment difficulties are
experienced by international students (p.206).
Enhancement of Academic Adjustment. Ways to enhance academic adjustment
include more effective orientation programs, improving English proficiency for
international students, and enhancing dialogue among professors and international
students. Also, a course on cultural adjustment may help.
Dolan (1997) found that international students may not be aware of potential
academic differences initially. Hence, relevant information to help international students
become familiar with the academic culture and academic system is crucial to their
academic adjustment. Orientation is a good way to begin to provide the required
information to them. However, students may not get all the information they need from
these orientations. The reasons are that, as mentioned by Dolan, most orientations are in
English, attendance is not mandatory, and orientation sessions are provided when
international students may not have fully recovered from their travel fatigue.
Improving English proficiency helps with the adjustment process. Dolan (1997)
suggested that better English instruction methods should be provided at home countries
of international students. He also suggested that American universities should offer
courses to improve the academic English skills of international students.
The improvement of communication and understanding among professors and
international students (Dolan, 1997) is conducive to academic adjustment. Such
communication will help students understand academic differences and class
expectations. Develop a cultural adjustment course is also useful for academic
adjustment (Dolan, 1977).
Relationship Among Social and Academic Adjustment. A Perspective on Student
Affairs by National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)
highlighted assumptions and beliefs of student affairs personnel. Some of the
fundamental ideas are feelings affect thinking and learning, personal circumstances
affect learning, and out-of-class environments affect learning. Even for international
students, the above ideas still hold true for them because they live in the academic
community. Their academic studies are influenced by both social adjustment and
academic adjustment on the whole. Wangs study (1993) on Chinese students also
22
revealed that social and academic adjustments were interrelated. In the following section,
social and academic adjustments will be studied on the whole.
Adjustment Related Factors
Furnham (1987) pointed out that although there was much research on problems
faced by foreigners, none of it actually helped to specify how or why or when different
people do or do not experience different aspects of culture shock (p.45). He further
pointed out that psychological differences in personality (p.58) and demographic
differences should be taken into consideration to better understand the adjustment issues.
In the following, adjustment related factors are explored to give a better understanding of
the adjustment of international students. These factors include resilience characteristics,
age, length of study, gender, country of origin, marital status, English proficiency level,
sources of support, major fields of study, parental educational background, perceived
program relevance and quality, academic level, college size, pre-departure knowledge
about the United States, use of student services, living arrangement, employment at
home, previous international experience, national status accorded, and orientation.
Resilience
Conner (1992) spent many years in the corporate world to study human response to
change. His study was conducted in the U.S. initially, and later expanded to companies in
other parts of the world. Based on his study, he found that resilience is an important
factor in successfully implementing change. He found that resilient people remain calm
in the process of change, spring back after difficulties, and become stronger after change.
In order to further study human responses to change and help companies to cope with
change, he established ODR, Inc.
Since international students face major change when coming to study in the U.S.,
resilience may be especially relevant to the discussion of adjustment issues in this paper.
Change and Assimilation Process. Conner (1992) gave a good description of change
in his book Managing at the Speed of Change. He noted that Never before has so much
changed so fast and with such dramatic implications for the entire world (Conner, 1992,
p.3). In todays world, changes have intensified at the personal, organizational, national
and global levels. As time goes on, the number of changes increase, the time to deal with
change decreases, and the complexity of changes become greater. Knowledge expansion,
population explosion and ideology conflict, for example, cause the dramatic increase in
the magnitude of the changes we now face (p.39). It may be a comfort for international
students to know that their adjustment to American university life is a change process and
that this change is not much different from other major changes they have to face in their
life such as marriage and finding or losing a job. How do people cope with change?
According to Conner (1992), people tend to exert control by at least anticipating the
future. When expectations meet the perceived reality, an equilibrium is reached; when
expectations do not match the perceived reality, people have to use resources to make the
adjustment. The adjustment process is called assimilation to change. Conner pointed out
that assimilation, adjustment to change, may cause reduced intellectual energy,
23
increased psychological stress, and diminished physical stamina and health (p.74), and
an individual only has a certain amount of assimilation capacity available. According to
Conner (1992), resilient people tend to both increase their total assimilation capacity
available and minimize the quality of assimilation needed for an individual change.
Human Adaptation: An Overview. Change is a way of life in our society, and human
adaptationthe ability to confront change in a way that maintains or enhances current
levels of functioning (ODR, 1995, p.1) becomes a critical element in productive human
existence. ODR (1995) described how human adaptation to external forces had been
studied from two perspectives. From the objective perspective, advocated by
Dohrenwend and his colleagues (as cited in ODR, 1995), external events were viewed as
objectively measurable stressors which exert the same load on everyone. From the
subjective perspective, advocated by Lazarus and his colleagues (as cited in ODR,
1995), an individuals subjective perception of an external event created the burden for
the person and influenced the persons response. Hence, adjustment to a change differs
from person to person. ODR held that both perspectives contribute to the understanding
of adaptation. Specifically, ODR noted that in order to study human adaptation, it is
important to study both objective stimuli and subjective cognitive processes.
ODR (1995) summarized different categories of stressful events, outside stimuli.
Stressful events can stem from different levels: self and family, community, and national
and global (Dimidjian, as cited in ODR, 1995). Stressful events can be sudden or
progressive; common or unusual (Casella & Motta, as cited in ODR, 1995); or happen
to people or be self-produced by people (Holmes and Rache, Epstein and Katz, as cited
in ODR, 1995).
ODR (1995) also described that there are two kinds of cognitive processing: bottomup and top-down. In the bottom-up processing, the brain synthesizes different
information into a schema. In the top-down processing, the brain uses the existing
schema to process information. Bottom-up processing consumes more energy than topdown. In adaptation to change, people use bottom-up processing, no matter what the
external stimuli are.
ODR (1995) also summarized ways to measure adaptation outcomes. Successful
adaptation outcomes can be measured by high performance and competence and/or
avoidance of a range of symptoms. The maintenance of high performance is given special
focus by ODR. Bryant (1995) gave a good description of the term performance when it
is used to describe change and resilience characteristics.
Performance refers to social, occupational, educational, or personal
achievementSocial performance is the establishment and maintenance of
satisfying friendships and affectionate relationships while occupational or
educational performance refers to the quality and quantity of defined task
performance at work or at school. Personal performance is the attainment of goals or
maintenance of standards imposed on oneself (p.1).
Cognitive Resource Approach for Human Adaptation. Kahneman (as cited in ODR
Document, 1995) proposed a model of cognitive resource allocation in the study of
human adaptation. According to this model, although individuals differ in the amount of
cognitive resources (e.g., intelligence), they all have a limited amount available. People
24
use different strategies or processes to allocate their cognitive resources to the tasks they
face: some of the strategies are more efficient than others. When people are confronted
with an overload of tasks or use inefficient resource allocation strategies and processes,
they suffer negative emotions.
Edwards cybernetic theory (as cited in ODR, 1995) helps to explain how cognitive
resources are allocated. When there are discrepancies among desire and perception, an
individual is motivated to allocate resources to reduce the discrepancies. The size and
importance of a discrepancy decide the motivation force, which in turn decides the
amount of cognitive resources to be allocated. The discrepancy reducing process is called
coping.
The two concepts of desire and perception of reality are important in understanding
coping. Peoples desire refers to any state or condition we consciously want (p.4).
Peoples desires are in hierarchical order with fundamental desires taking priority over
other desires. Although peoples desire may be shaped by such things as past experience
and feedback from others, people do share some fundamental desires (e.g., self-related
desires such as desires for control, for meaning and for self-realization).
According to Edwards model, peoples perceptions may be influenced by aspects
of the physical and social environment, by personal characteristics, by social information,
and by our cognitive construction of reality (as cited in ODR document, 1995, p.5).
Peoples perceptions of reality are subjective rather than objective. The more the
discrepancies among desire and perception, the more important one attributes the
discrepancies to be and the more resources are allocated to the goal of reducing the
discrepancies among desire and perception.
Edwards theory also explains different coping strategies. In coping with
discrepancies, one may alter perception, desires, or even ignore discrepancies. Moreover,
one may even make attempts to improve well-being directly by engaging in enjoyable
personal experience unrelated to the initial desire, turning to drugs or alcohol, and other
strategies aimed directly at enhancing well-being (ODR, 1995, p.5). Successful coping
leads to adaptation, while unsuccessful coping leads to negative outcomes. Successful
coping may be influenced by several factors, many of which are within a persons
influence. The study of resilience focuses on the study of individual characteristics that
can lead to successful coping.
Resilience Characteristics. Conner (1992) defined resilience as the capacity to
absorb high levels of change while displaying minimal dysfunctional behavior (p.6). On
the basis of his literature review, Bryant (1995) defined resilience as the successful
outcome of a process which is invoked by change (p.6). He further explained that when
a change enters into a persons life, the individuals traits (e.g., optimism) and skills
(e.g., time management) interact with environmental and situational factors (e.g., the
necessity to relocate quickly and efficiently). This interaction produces behaviors that
increase the likelihood of a successful adaptation to change ( p.6). He further explained
that resilience is illustrated by the maintenance or improvement of social, occupational,
and/or personal performance following some change in circumstances (p.7).
Instead of being a single trait, resilience is a combination of traits that is manifested to
various extents in different people (pp.231-232).
25
Conner studied resilience characteristics by observing peoples reactions to change.

By observing peoples response to change, Conner (1992) noted two orientations: type-D
orientatedpeople focus on the risk part of change, and type-O orientatedpeople focus
on the opportunity part of change. For type-D people, they are in lack of an overarching
sense of purpose in their lives and find it is difficult to reorient after disruptions. Their
tolerance to ambiguity is not fully developed. Since they are reactive rather than
proactive to change, they do not plan for change. They blame others for the problems
caused by change.
Type-O people on the other hand, have a strong life vision. They view change, even
major, unanticipated change, as a natural part of human experience (p.237). Type-O
people tend to contain the stress caused by disruption, know their limitations, are creative
in using their resources, remain independent and self-sufficient, know how to tap the
special skills of others, and nurture relationships.
Type-O characteristics can be summarized into the following five categories:
positive, focused, flexible, organized, and proactive. A positive individual views life as
challenging but filled with opportunity. Focused people have a clear vision of what is
to be achieved, and flexible people are pliable when responding to uncertainty
(p.239). An organized individual applies structures to help manage ambiguity, and a
proactive individual engages change instead of evading it (p.240).
The Positive and Flexible characteristics can be further split into Positive (World)
and Positive (Yourself) and Flexible (Thoughts) and Flexible (Social), respectively, as
described in the ODR (2001) document. Although no study has been directly carried out
to study resilience characteristics and adjustment to a new culture, the significance of
resilience characteristics and adjustment can still be found as the relationships among
these characteristics and adjustment have been studied under different terms and in
different frameworks.
Positive: The World is peoples tendency to focus on the positive elements of the
world. Although most situations have both positive and negative aspects, people may
concentrate on either positive or negative elements. For people who view the world
positively, they may see opportunities in a difficult situation, find solutions to a problem,
and are better able to create situations that are positive. For people who view the world
negatively, they may become anxious and depressed at difficult situations and are
disenabled to find creative solutions (ODR, 2001).
ODR (1995) explained the significance of Positive: The World on the adaptation
process. First, Isen (as cited in ODR, 1995) found that positive individuals are more
likely to choose learning goals over performance goals. Dweck and Leggett ( as cited in
ODR, 1995) identified two kinds of goals: performance and learning goals. A
performance goal sets as the desired state a particular level of performance, while a
learning goal sets as the desired state some-level of improvement over ones prior
performance (ODR, 1995, p.7). By choosing a learning goal, the positive individual has
a better chance to improve. Second, since positive individuals can identify opportunities
in different circumstances, they may be able to identify better ways to achieve the desired
results than negative individuals. Third, Isen (as cited in ODR, 1995) found that
individuals in a positive mood tend to have better problem solving ability, which is more
likely to lead to effectiveness, success, resources enhanced processes and eventually
increased performance. Fourth, Positive: The World protects one from the energy drain
26
of negative emotions. ODR explained that under negative moods, resources were
allocated to negative thoughts or feelings, which were not task related, and which may
lead to a vicious negative cycle.
Positive: Yourself is that you believe yourself as a valuable and capable person,
and that you believe you can influence the environment. Positive views on oneself enable
one to build a strong foundation to fight against stress and uncertainty and provide one
with confidence to endure failure. Positive: Yourself also enables one to take actions
rather than wait passively for things to happen (ODR, 2001).
From the perspective of a cognitive resource approach, ODR (1995) pointed out that
the effect of Positive: Yourself on successful adaptation to change lay in the following
two related aspects. On the one hand, when people do not have positive views on
themselves, they may easily feel a threat to their esteem. Edward (as cited in ODR, 1995)
pointed out that for most individuals, the goal of restoration of self-esteem was put in the
priority in allocating resources. Steele, Spencer, and Lynch (as cited in ODR, 1995) also
pointed out that when an individual feels a threat to their self-esteem, they may use selfefficacy and others supports, and even resources to defend against the threat.
Individuals with low-esteem, therefore, may need to spend a lot of resources to resolve a
threat to their self-esteem, while individuals with high-esteem may be able to dismiss a
threat quickly. On the other hand, individuals with positive views tend to expect future
success on the basis of the previous success and to adopt learning goals.
The significance of Positive: Yourself on adjustment is discussed in the literature
under different names. Aydin (1997) found that Personal Control is significant to
adjustment. Personal Control is defined as the degree to which individuals believe
they influence the process and outcome of their life events and the extent to which they
feel forces beyond their control play a role in shaping an directing their lives (Moran &
Boyer International as cited in Aydin, p.146). It can be seen that both Personal Control
and Positive: Yourself both describe an individuals confidence in self.
Focused is having a strong sense of goals and priorities. If one is focused on
important goals, he or she can easily allocate energy to attend to these goals (ODR,
2001). Further still, with a focused goal, an individuals attention is less likely diverted
by unimportant goals and, thus, is more likely to have a simplified cognitive process to
determine the relative importance of the remaining desire and perception discrepancies.
Therefore, the individual does not waste resources on unimportant goals and does not use
resources to rank goals according to their importance (ODR 1995). Hence, they have a
better chance to efficiently use their resources to realize important goals. Without focused
goals, people may put energy to things that draw their immediate attention. Therefore, it
is likely that they will use resources inefficiently (ODR, 2001).
Flexible: Thoughts is the person's ability and willingness to look at situations
from multiple points of view, to suspend judgment while considering alternative
perspectives, and to accept and live with paradoxes and contradictions as part of life
(ODR, 2001). People with flexible thoughts tend to find creative solutions to problems, as
they do not jump to conclusions.
ODR (1995) explained the effects of Flexible: Thoughts on adaptation. First, an
individual with flexible thoughts tends to have fewer resource demands as they are
willing to tolerate small discrepancies among desires and reality. Second, seeing a
situation from different angles, an individual with flexible thoughts is more likely to find
27
ways to modify a situation to fit his or her desires. Third, being able to view things from
different angles, an individual with flexible thoughts tends to have enhanced capabilities
to reduce discrepancy, and to have modified coping strategies which prevent the waste of
resources by sticking to an unsuccessful strategy.
Flexible: Thought on adjustment is also discussed in the literature under different
terms. Aydin (1997) found that Tolerance is significant for adjustment. Tolerance is
defined as the willingness to endure unfamiliar surroundings and circumstanceIt
also requires an ability to withstand living conditions and surroundings that are different
or less comfortable than what one is used to (Moran & Boyer International as cited in
Aydin, p.147). Comparing the concept of Tolerance with that of Flexible: Thought,
one will notice that the two are closely related because Flexible: Thoughts enables one
to adopt a Tolerance attitude.
Flexible: Social is the ability to draw on the resources of others (ODR, 2001).
People with the characteristic of Flexible: Social realize their interdependence with
others. Moreover, they are able to establish strong social bonds which give them support
during difficult times (ODR, 2001).
The impact of Flexible: Social on adaptation is described by ODR (1995) in the
following aspects. First, a strong connection to others gives one adequate information and
feedback to set out his or her goals realistically. A goal that is unrealistically low may not
motivate a person while an unrealistically high goal may frustrate a person. Neither of
these two kinds of goals enables an individual to effective use of his or her cognitive
resources; only realistic goals enable one to efficiently use energy. Second, a strong
connection with others helps one to develop a realistic perception of the current situation.
Without information and feedback, individuals can form overly positive or negative
perceptions of the current situation, which is not conducive for the efficient use of
resources. Only accurate perceptions of a situation enable one to use cognitive resources
effectively. Third, feedback from others can initiate the process of resolving a
discrepancy among desire and perception before it evolves into a bigger one. Such
feedback, if actively sought, can cause many social costs. Strong bonds with other people
can make such feedback easily available. Fourth, strong social relationships with others
may make additional resources available. With strong ties with other people, an
individual can draw on others abilities and capabilities which improves his or her coping
strategies, and even get others practical support. And the emotional support from the
others enables one to view oneself realistically. Smith, Smoll, and Ptacek (as cited in
ODR, 1995) found that there is a stronger relationship among stress and injury when an
individual has neither personal nor social resources.
The significance of Flexible: Social on adjustment is discussed in the literature
under different terms. Aydin (1997) found that Interpersonal Interests, Trust in
People and Social Adaptability are significant to adjustment. Interpersonal Interests
is defined as the extent to which individuals take interest and enjoyment in being with
other people (Moran & Boyer International as cited in Aydin, p.146). Trust in People
is defined as the extent to which an individual has an attitude of faith and trust in
others. Social Adaptability is defined as the ability to adjust to new or unfamiliar
social situations. The ability to socialize comfortably with other people in new situations,
as well as the ability to form new groups of friends are the major focuses of this
dimension (Moran & Boyer International as cited in Aydin, p.147). It can be found that
28
the three concepts in Aydins research Interpersonal Interests, Trust in People and
Social Adaptability are closely related with Flexible: Social because the three
concepts are conditions for an individual to be able to have the characteristic of Flexible:
Social. Hence, the concepts of Interpersonal Interests, Trust in People and Social
Adaptability are in line with Flexible: Social.
Organized is the ability of one to find order in chaos and structure in ambiguity,
and to move beyond thought toward action (ODR, 2001). This feature enables a person
to set priorities on different tasks, concentrate on important ones, and make up plans to
realize them. Organization enables one to efficiently use resources (ODR, 2001).
ODR (1995) discussed the importance of Being Organized on adaptation. First,
organization skills and the discipline of planfulness enable one to select among several
possible strategies and take a series of steps within a strategy. Doing one thing at a time
and knowing what might happen next save resources. Second, organizational skills
enable one to set up subgoals within a task, which makes the goal appear manageable
each time and enables one to allocate small amounts of resources at a time.
Proactive is the willingness to act decisively in the midst of uncertainty (ODR,
2001). Proactive people are willing to take some risks for valuable opportunities. When
disruption comes, they are willing to take active strategies rather than use avoidance and
withdrawal strategies (ODR, 2001). The essence of Proactive is willingness to take
risks.
ODR (1995) explained the role of Proactive on adaptation. First, willingness to
take risks may lead to high performance through the setting up of high standards. Second,
willingness of risk taking leads one to have active coping strategies, which has been
found to be connected with better adjustment by Aspinwall and Taylor (as cited in ODR,
1995).
The significance of Proactive on adjustment is described in the literature under
different terms. Aydin (1997) found that proactive traits such as Initiative, Risk
Taking and Personal Control are significant for adjustment in the U.S. culture and
related that under the U.S. proactive cultural environment, proactive abilities are
rewarded. Initiative is defined as the extent to which individuals are able to be the
first to take charge of new or challenging situations and accomplish whatever needs to be
done. (Moran & Boyer International as cited in Aydin, p.146). Risk Taking is defined
as the willingness to take risk, meet challenges and cope with change (Moran & Boyer
International as cited in Aydin, p.147). Initiative and Risk Taking describe similar
traits as Proactive because the central focuses of the two sets of personal characteristics
are risk-taking and responsibilities.
ODR (1995) pointed out that all of the above characteristics are not independent of
each other. ODR (2001) also held that the above-mentioned characteristics apply to all
change situations and different change situations may require one or several of the above
resilience characteristics. Resilient people are strong in all of the seven areas, and are
balanced in their resilience characteristics. They can draw upon different characteristics
under different situations. People who are strong in some areas yet weak in the rest areas
are not balanced in their resilience characteristics. They tend to use the characteristics in
which they are strong and not to use those where they are weak. They may be able to
successfully cope with some of the change situations, yet they may become less efficient
29
at others. In general, they tend to possess less resilience than people who are balanced
and strong in all areas.
Enhancing Resilience. Resilience characteristics can be enhanced. According to
Conner (1992), everyone can increase their resilience characteristics. The difference
among people is that those individuals who have more resilience characteristics
inherently may find it is easier to enhance their resilience while people who do not have a
lot of resilient capabilities to begin with may need to make special efforts to increase
their resilience. One can improve resilience by understanding and respecting resilience
characteristics, conserving physical, intellectual, and emotional energy against useless
waste, and liberating resources. To be specific, one can improve resilience by improving
weak areas of resilience characteristics and practice these resilience skills in coping with
daily life change. Moreover, the guidance and support from people who are strong in
others weak areas can help them to improve their resilience levels.
In summary, resilience characteristics are important indicators of ones ability to deal
with change. It is desirable to have strong and balanced resilience characteristics in all
seven areas. And resilience can be enhanced through conscious efforts. Besides resilience
characteristics, background factors such as age, length of stay, and gender also may be
related to adjustment, as discussed below.
Age
Although both younger and older students have their own advantages in making
adjustments, most research reveals that younger students have more difficulties in making
adjustment. However, age alone may not be a very precise predictor of adjustment. It
might be fruitful to combine age with other background factors to predict adjustment.
Younger and older students have different advantages and disadvantages in making
adjustments. Compared with older students, younger students may have an advantage in
learning English and cultural adjustment. However, compared with older students,
younger students are less mature which may cause more difficulties and problems in a
new environment. Ninggal (1998) found that younger Malaysian students experienced
more stress than older ones. Whats more, they are faced with the pressure to accumulate
knowledge and skills in a specific field. Konyu-Fogel (1993) discovered that older
international students reported significantly less academic adjustment difficulties than
younger students.
Older students, especially graduate students, may be more mature in dealing with
problems encountered, and may be more prepared in their special field of study.
However, older students also encounter more adjustment problems in culture adjustment
and in language. And they may have more distractions from life. First, older students
may face more sociocultural problems than younger students. Adelegan and Park (1985)
found that older African students had greater difficulty making the transition from their
home culture to that of the United States than did younger students (p.507). Olaniran
(1996) obtained similar results. He indicated that social difficulties experienced by
foreign students in social situations calling for intrapersonal decisions intensify with age
(p.80). Olaniran explained that compared with younger students older students may be
more concerned about the influence of their personal decisions on other people and hence
experienced more anxiety. Second, older students may have a disadvantage in language
30
learning. Cheng (1999) found older students had significantly more problems in English
language. Xia (1991) also found that graduate Asian students among 26-31 years of age
experienced more problems than those below 25 years of age in the English Language
area (p.110). Third, older students may have more distractions from life. Huntley
(1993) found that graduate students had less successful adjustment because of factors
such as housing choice and marriage.
Research does not agree on the effect of age on a number of adjustment problems.
Some found that younger students experienced more adjustment problems. Shabeeb
(1996) determined that younger Saudi and Arabian Gulf students encountered more
problems in the areas of admission, living-dining, and placement services than older
ones. Xia (1991) found that Asian students below 25 had more problems in 8 of the 11
problem areas: admission-selection, orientation services, social-personal, living-dining,
religious services, student activities, and placement services.
Others found that older students experienced more problems. Gaither and Griffin (as
cited in Lee et al., 1981) found that the adjustment problems for younger foreign
students were minimal compared to those of older students (p.11). Han (as cited in Lee
et al, 1981) found that foreign students who were more than 30 years old encountered
more major academic problems than students less than 30 years old (p.11). Still other
studies found that age was not related with adjustment problems. Lesser (1998) found
that age was not a significant predictor of adjustment for undergraduate students in his
study. Sharma (as cited in Lee et al 1981) found that age upon arrival in the U.S. had
little effect on foreign student problems (p.11).
One major reason for disagreement in the research on the effects of age on
adjustment is that research on age and adjustment use arbitrary age division lines (e.g.,
24, 26, 30) to distinguish among older and younger students. It is difficult to establish a
clear-cut age dividing line because peoples maturity and personal experiences do not
correspond precisely with age and because students at certain age clusters tend to share
similar characteristics (e.g. undergraduate students). One possible solution is to combine
age with academic levels (undergraduate and graduate) to create four subcategories:
undergraduate older students, undergraduate younger students, graduate older students,
and graduate younger students. Some research results have already shown the possibility
of this method. Xia (1991) found that within the graduate students, the group of 25 years
or younger had the fewest adjustment problems (p76). It might be concluded that
among undergraduate students, younger students have a more difficult time to adjust than
older students; while among graduate students, younger students may have a less difficult
time to adjust than older students.
In this study, only graduate students will be studied. Hence, age may be negatively
related with adjustment.
Length of Stay
Although international students with different lengths of stay may experience
different kinds of problems, research reveals that, in general, students who stayed for a
shorter period of time experienced more problems.
International students with different lengths of stay in the U.S. may experience
different kinds of problems. Students who stayed shorter may have more problems in a
31
broad areas such as sociocultural and language. Cheng (1999) found that students who
stayed a shorter time (less than 6 months) experienced significantly more problems than
those who stayed longer in social-personal and living-dining problem areas. Xia (1991)
found that Asian students who had been in the U.S. six months or less expressed
significantly more problems with the English Language than those who had been in the
U.S. more than three years. Those who had stayed one year or less experienced
significantly more difficulties than those who had stayed more than three years in five
problem areas: Academic Advising and Record, Social-Personal, Living-Dining, English
Language, and Student Activities (p.112).
International students who stayed longer may also experience more difficulties in
specific areas such as the English Language and job placement. Cheng (1999) found that
in the English Language and Placement Service Problem area, (more than 48 months)
students experienced slightly more problems than (less than six months) students (p.74).
Although newcomers and old timers both experience language difficulty, for new comers
the language problems may be more related to daily difficulties and academic studies;
while for the old timers, the language may be more related to professional development.
Individual research sometimes conflicts on the influence of length of stay on
adjustment, yet a general literature review reveals that the longer the stay, the less the
problems. Shabeeb (1996) found that Saudi and Arabian Gulf students who stayed longer
experienced more difficulties in all of the 11 areas in Michigan International Student
Problem Inventory (MISPI). (The 11 problem areas are Admission and Selection,
Orientation Service, Academic Record, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Health
Service, Religious Service, English Language, Student Activity, Financial Aid, and
Placement Service.) Shahmirzadi (1989) found that there are no significant differences
among the numbers of problems reported by the students on the Michigan International
Student Problem Inventory based on the number of years they have stayed in the U.S.
(p.75). Porter (1966) found that foreign students on campus for thirteen months or
longer checked more problems than those foreign students on campus for one year or
less (p.8). Cheng (1999) found that students who stayed at USD [University of South
Dakota] for more than three years experienced less difficulty adjusting than students who
stayed at USD for three years of less (p.91). In spite of different results yielded by
individual research, a literature review in this area showed that, in general, the shorter the
stay, the more problems. Using the literature review by Klineberg and Hull, Schram and
Lauver (1988) summarized that evidence on the effect of length of time in a host
country is conflicting, although there is some indication that the longer a student is in the
host country the fewer problems the student is likely to have (p.147).
Summarizing research on length of stay and adjustment, one finds that conflicting
research results may be caused by the arbitrary division among shorter and longer time of
stay, which could be six months, one year, or longer. Considering the diversified nature
of international students, unique adjustment problems encountered, and differences in
individual ability to cope with change, one could easily conclude that it is almost
impossible to correlate a fixed period of time with certain adjustment problems.
However, research now tries to use trends to describe the relationship among length
of stay and adjustment. In terms of psychological adjustment, Ying and Liese (as cited in
Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) discovered that there was a decrement in adjustment
among departure [from home] and arrival [at host country] (p.160); and Lu, and Ward
32
and Kennedy (as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) found a rapid adjustment in
the early stages. In terms of socialcultrual adaptation, Kennedy, and Ward and Kennedy
(as cited in Ward, Bochner, and Furnham 2001) discovered that adjustment decreases
on entering a new environment, improves markedly in the initial stages, continues to
increase over time and eventually stabilizes (p.160). All these indicate a significant
influence of departure and early arrival stages on adjustment.
In summary, research shows that there is often a relationship among length of stay
and adjustmentthe longer the stay, the fewer the problems. However, there is no strict
correspondence among the different lengths of stay and adjustment. Instead, the tendency
is that adjustment is quicker in the initial stages, and then adjustment momentum reduces
over time and eventually stabilizes. Hence, it is crucial to offer help to international
students at pre-departure and early arrival stages.
Gender
Many researchers found that male and female students experienced different kinds
of problems. In general, female students encounter more emotion, psychological, or selfperception related difficulties, while male students experience more difficulties in
English. Research revealed the problems and difficulties faced by international female
students. Manese, Sedlacek, and Leong (1988) found that in terms of self-perceptions,
women (international undergraduates) expected to have a harder time than men
(international undergraduates) adjusting to the university. They indicated that they
[female international undergraduate students] were more easily discouraged when things
did not work out, saw themselves as less likely to act on strong beliefs, and were less
likely to believe they were viewed as leaders (p.25). Aydin (1997) also found that
female international graduate students reported higher levels of anxiety, and marginally
higher levels of depression than male subjects (p.84). Fidora (1989) found that for
Malaysian female students, frustration was more related to perceived discrimination. He
also found that significantly more female than male students reported that independence
was the greatest adjustment they had to make in the United States. Besides psychological
related problems, female international students may have more difficulties in
understanding the process of academic studies. Konyu-Fogel (1993) found that female
international students experienced significantly more academic adjustment difficulties
than male subjects (p.223). Fidora (1989) also found that compared with Malaysian
male students, Malaysian female students more likely reported lack of sufficient transfer
credits as the reason for additional time of degree completion. Shabeeb (1996) found that
Saudi and Arabian Gulf female students faced more problems in the area of academic
records (academic process), while Xia (1991) found that female Asian students
experienced more difficulties in the academic advising and record area.
Research also revealed problems and difficulties faced by international male
students. Shabeeb (1996) found that male students reported more problems with the
English language and in placement services than female students. Individual research
sometimes conflicted on the role of gender in adjustment; yet research, in general, seems
to show that female students experienced more adjustment problems than male students.
Fidora (1989) pursued gender differences in the adjustment of international Malaysian
male and female students. He discovered that gender was not a significant factor in
33
academic achievement, in educational satisfaction, or in the overall acculturation of

Malaysian students. Pruitt (1978) found that African men reported better adjustment
than women (p.146). Porter (1966) found that female foreign students checked more
problems than males (p.8). Mallinckrodt and Leong (1992) made comparisons among
international women and international men and noted similarly that women were
significantly more depressed, more anxious (p.74). Lee et al. (1981) summarized
the literature in the field and concluded females encounter more problems than males
(p.12). Research also reveals that the effects of different kinds of support differ with
gender. Mallinckrodt and Leong (1992) concluded that for international graduate
students, relations with faculty members were particularly beneficial for men,
whereas tangible support, relations with other students, and curriculum flexibility seemed
to be most beneficial for women (p.74).
In conclusion, male and female international students may face different kinds of
adjustment problems. In spite of some conflicting research results, much of the research
found that female students faced more difficulties. It might also be helpful to combine
gender with academic level to have a deeper knowledge as suggested by Manese,
Sedlacek, and Leong (1988). It might be also beneficial to combine gender with marital
status. Since international female students face more adjustment problems, it could be
useful to identify important factors that contribute to their adjustment.
Country (Region) of Origin
Research, as discussed below, found that students from different countries or
(regions) of origin may face different adjustment problems. The severity of the
adjustment problems may be influenced by the culture, economic development, and use
of English at home. But, not much research has been done on the role of country of origin
on friendship patterns.
Difference in Adjustment Problems. Research concluded that country of origin is an
important factor in making adjustment to U.S. university life, revealing that international
students from different countries or cultural backgrounds tend to face different kinds of
difficulties and problems. In general, Asian students face more difficulties in English
language and social relations, South and Central American students experience more
problems in homesickness, and African students experience more difficulties in many
areas. Stafford, Marion, and Salter (1980) found the following:
Homesickness and difficulty in obtaining suitable housing were most problematic
for those from the Middle East and North Africa, while future vocational plans and
social relationships with members of the opposite sex proved most difficult for
students from the Orient. Students from South and Central American indicated that
their most difficult areas of adjustment were homesickness and obtaining suitable
housing. English language, homesickness, and obtaining suitable housing were
identified by Southeast Asian students as their most difficult adjustment areas.
(pp.41-42).
Nebedum-Ezeh (1997) found that African students had the biggest problem in their lack
of orientation. In addition, African students also had problems in initial academic and
feeding difficulties, discrimination and racism, social isolation and loneliness,
34
homesickness, problems with cold weather, and understanding and being understood by
Americans (p.94). Xia (1991) found that the most troublesome problems experienced
by the Asian students were in the areas of English Language, placement services, and
financial aid (p.120). Lin and Yi (1997) also found that English was a big hurdle for
Asian international students. Stafford (as cited in Lee et al. 1985) found that Africans
had the greatest difficulty with unfriendliness of the communityandAsians had the
greatest difficulty with social relations, while Latin Americans had the least (p.18).
In particular, students from different countries within a continent may also
experience totally different adjustment problems from each other. Konyu-Fogel (1993)
discovered that international students from different countries differ significantly in terms
of academic status (undergraduate or graduate) and English proficiency levels. He also
found that in terms of academic adjustment difficulties, students from Japan reported
greatest difficulties while students from India reported least difficulties. Ninggal (1998)
found that homesickness was a main concern to Malaysian students studying at Western
Michigan University. Stafford, Marion, and Salter (1980) discovered that Single
students from India and Pakistan reported that their biggest problem area was social
relationships with the opposite sex (p.41). Perkins et al. (1977) studied international
students at the University of Georgia during the winter quarter of 1974-75, and divided
them into three groups: Chinese, Indian, and other respondents. They found that the
Chinese rated English proficiency, racial or religious discrimination, and
unfriendliness of people from the community as significantly greater problems than did
the Indians and other respondents. As to the other respondents, they differ significantly
from both the Chinese and Indians in having fewer frequent interactions with people from
their own countries and in having more frequent interactions with people from other
foreign countries.
Factors Determining Ease of Adjustment. Researchers tended to agree that the ease
of adjustment is decided by the following two factors: the similarities among home
countries and the U.S., relating to the economic development stage and the use of English
in home countries.
The more similar the home country culture is to that of the U.S., the easier the
adjustment. Aydin (1997) found that Central/South American students and students from
Western countries demonstrated better social adjustment than students from Far East
countries. Stafford, Marion, and Salter (1980) also concluded that African students had
the greatest overall level of adjustment difficulty, while South/Central American students
reported the lowest overall level of difficulty (p.41). Surdam and Collins (1984) found
that "students from outside the Western Hemisphere experienced significantly more
difficulties than did those from Western Hemisphere nations" (p.243). Hull (1978)
pointed out that the greater the differences among a students home culture and the host
culture, the more difficulty the student will have in adjusting to the latter. Therefore, nonEuropeans from rural areas are more apt to be alienated than are urban European students
(as cited in Schram and Lauver, p.147). Olaniran (1996) summarized that taken as a
whole these results indicate that cultural similarity reduces social difficulty experience of
a sojourner (p.81).
For countries with distinctively different cultures from the U.S., economic
development and the use of English decide the ease of adjustment of their students in the
35
U.S. Xias study (1991) on Asian students supported the above point. Japan is a
developed industrial country, and Japanese students were found to have the fewest
adjustment problems (p.122). In India, English is used as a second language, and Indian
students experienced fewest problems in academic and language aspects and fewer
problems in social and living related areas (p.122). In summary, students from countries
which have an advanced economy and which are similar to or open to the U.S. have
easier adjustments to the U.S. society than those from less developed and less open
countries. Students from countries where English is an official language tend to have
higher English proficiency levels and better academic adjustment than those from
countries where English is a foreign language (foreign language means that it is not used
officially).
Gaps in the Literature. Not much research has been done to determine relationships
among the country of origin and friendship patterns, which positively influence
adjustments because they provide social support. However, setting aside differences in
cultural habits, there might be a big difference in establishing friendships when there are
many students from the same country of origin. Wang (1993) studied the friendship
patterns of Chinese students. He found that most Chinese students made friends with
other Chinese students. This finding is not surprising because research on friendship
patterns reveals that friendship requires a high degree of similarity, which includes
language, cultural and social background (p.117). Other researchers also noticed that
international students tended to make friends with homefolks.
However, there is one difference between Chinese students and students from some
other countries with a limited number of students studying in the U.S. Because of a large
number of Chinese students, it is not difficult for a Chinese student to find other Chinese
students and associate with them. Students from countries with a small number of
homefolk students may find that it is extremely difficult to find others from their own
home countries. Literature does not reveal the friendship patterns for international
students with limited number of home folks.
In short, researchers determined that country of origin played an important role in
adjustment. The easiness of adjustment is decided by the similarities among the home
countries and the U.S. Not much research, however, has been done for students from
countries with limited number of students in the U.S.
Marital Status
Research on marital status yielded mixed findings. Some researchers found there
was no difference in adjustment among students based on marital status. Shabeeb (1996)
noted that there were no significant differences among married and single Saudi and
Arabian Gulf students in adjustment difficulties and concerns. Cheng (1999) detected no
significant differences among married and non-married students in terms of the problems
they face. Shahmirzadi related no significant difference among single and married
Middle Eastern students in the number of adjustment problems reported on the Michigan
International Student Problem Inventory (p.72).
Other researchers found that marital status did influence adjustment. However,
researchers do not agree whether marital status exerts a positive or negative influence on
36
adjustme nt. Pavri (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) found that married students
living with their familiesexperienced fewer difficulties than those who live alone and
married foreign students tended to have more problems than single foreign students
(p.39). Adelegan and Parks (1985) discovered that married African students encountered
more difficulty in social adjustment than single students. Han (as cited in Lee et al, 1981)
found that unmarried foreign students encountered more major problems than married
students (p.13). Aydin (1997) found that marriage was significantly related to better
personal/emotional adjustment and marginally related to higher academic adjustment.
The reason for the conflicting results from research concerning marital status and
adjustment may be because marital status is too broad a category to capture the
adjustment problems of international students. Research found that the accompaniment of
a spouse is an important adjustment factor for married students. Xia (1991) found that
married Asian students who were not accompanied by their spouses had significantly
more problems in the admission selection area than those who were accompanied by
their spouses and children (p.111). Klineberg & Hull (as cited in Schram & Lauver,
p.147) found that there is evidence that living with a spouse decreases loneliness.
However, based on their national study of international students from developing
countries (102 in total), Lee et al. (1981) found that the majority of married students lived
with their spouse. Hence, living or not living with spouse is not a potential factor to help
understand the conflicting results concerning married and single students.
Another important factor which may help to reconcile the conflicting results may be
financial conditions. Combing marital status with financial situations, four subgroups
may be formed: married with secured financial conditions, married with unsecured
financial conditions, single with secured financial conditions, and single with unsecured
financial conditions. Although there is no research yet, it may be postulated that the ease
of adjustment for the above four groups are in the following sequence: married with
secured financial conditions, single with secured financial conditions, single with
unsecured financial conditions, and married with unsecured financial conditions.
In summary, research yielded conflicting results on the role of marital status on
adjustment. It may be fruitful to combine marital status with financial situation to form
subgroups to further study adjustment problems. It may also be useful to combine marital
status with gender. Married women may face more problems than single women.
English Proficiency
For many international students, the English language is a big hurdle. Han (1996)
found that English was the most problematic area for Korean students. Shabeeb (1996)
found that the most problematic area for Saudi and Arabian Gulf students was also the
English language. Xia (1991), too, determined from his study that the English language
was the most troublesome area for Asian students (p.107).
Researchers concurred that a high English proficiency level contributes to positive
adjustment. A high English proficiency enables international students to make better
adjustment in academic studies and in sociocultural life, while a low proficiency level can
cause problems for international students in a wide range of areas. Through their meta
analysis, Spaulding and Flack (1976) found out that the level of English ability, as
measured by TOEFL or other standardized English-as-a-Foreign-Language tests, is a
37
valid predictor of academic success for undergraduate and graduate foreign students
(p.41). They also concluded students who have difficulties with oral and written English
tend to have both academic and social adjustment problems (p.51). Cussler (as cited in
Spaulding & Flack 1976) found that language competence was a major variable in
studying adjustment and academic success. Konyu-Fogel (1993) noted that students
with high competency in English language skills reported significantly less academic
difficulties than students with low competencies in English language skills (p.222).
Surdam and Collins (1984) noticed that "students who believed that their English
was adequate on arrival were significantly better adapted than those who believed it to be
inadequate" (p.243). Jochems et al. (as cited in Ward, Bochner, & Furnham 2001) also
noted that language proficiency is related to academic performance (p.156). Dolan
(1997) determined that English proficiency was fundamental to cultural and academic
adjustment. Lee et al (1981) held that English language proficiency is of central
importance to international students. On the basis of their literature review, Lee et al
summarized that the majority of research supported proficiency in English was
positively related to academic performance(p.13). Furthermore, English proficiency is
also related to social and emotional adjustment, as summarized by Lee et al.
In summary, researchers agree that the English proficiency level is crucial to
adjustment.
Sources of Support
Although research on sources of support sometimes yielded conflicting results, a
majority of the research found that students with strong financial support experienced
fewer adjustment problems. Some research yielded different findings. Shabeeb (1996)
found that Saudi and Arabian Gulf students with scholarships encountered more
problems and concerns in the areas of admission, academic records, and English language
than those with no scholarship.
In general, research shows that students with sources of support tend to encounter
fewer adjustment problems. Cheng (1999) found that international students who had
scholarships or assistantship encountered less problems and concerns than student relying
on self-support and family-support (p.91). Xia (1991) found that Asian students with
assistantships showed significantly fewer problems in eight problem areas: admissionselection, orientation services, academic advising and record, social-personal, livingdining, health services, English language, and student activities. Halsz (as cited in
Spaulding & Flack, 1976) studied Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Thailand students at
the University of California. He found that family-supported students were less
successful than sponsored students (p.39). Pavri (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976)
also found that [foreign] students with scholarships were more successful than those
who were self-supporting (p39).
In summary, international students with adequate sources of support tend to have
fewer adjustment problems.
Major Fields of Study
38
Students majoring in different fields may experience different kinds of problems. In

general, students majoring in arts and humanities experienced more difficulties than
students in science and engineering. Shabeeb (1996) found that Saudi and Arabian Gulf
students who majored in fields related to the arts and humanities encountered more
problems in the area of health service. Xia (1991) found that Asian students majoring in
an Artistic field had significantly more problems in the English Language than those
majoring in a Scientific field. (p.112). However, Xia found that Asian students in a
science field had significantly more problems in financial aid and placement services than
did those in an artistic field.
The literature suggested that, on the whole, students majoring in arts and humanities
have better English proficiency than students in science and engineering. On the one
hand, arts and humanities students encountered more problems in using English for
academic purposes than science and engineering students because of the high level of
English proficiency required. Hence, international arts and humanities students may
encounter more problems in academic adjustment. Chongolee (as cited in Lee et al. 1985)
found that engineering students enjoyed the highest academic performance while social
science majors suffered the lowest. On the other hand, better English proficiency levels
enabled arts and humanity students to make better adjustment in social life. Han (as cited
in Lee et al, 1985) found that engineering students had more English problems than
students in other majors.
In the literature, students are put into different groups according to different ways to
group majors. Xia (1991) used Kolbs classification method and put students into two
groups:
(1) Scientific or Abstract Field (natural sciences-mathematics) which includes
Engineering, Computer Sciences, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Geography,
Agriculture, Botany, Physiology, Business, Bacteriology, Zoology, Biology, and
Ecology, and (2). Artistic or Concrete Field (social-humanity) which includes Art,
Education, Language, History, Journalism, Psychology, Sociology, Social Work,
Philosophy, Music, Political Science, Economics, Anthropology, Architecture, Law,
and Library Science. (P.89)
Parental Educational Background
Research seems to agree that the adjustment of international students is influenced by
their parents educational background. Pruitt (1978) found that foreign students from
prominent families were better adapted to the American society. Surdam and Collins
(1984) obtained similar findings that students from better educated families were
significantly better adapted than those from less well-educated families (p.243).
Perceived Program Relevance and Quality
Adjustment is also related to international students perception of the relevance and
quality of academic programs in the United States. Their perceptions of the relevance of
their academic programs are decided by their future career goals and their motivations of
returning to their home country or not. Ford (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) found
39
that students who do not have a job waiting [at home] were more apt to view as
moderate or high the relevance of what was being learned (p.43).
Urban or suburban versus Rural Background
A literature review shows that students from suburban areas adjust better than those
from rural background. It may be because that suburban areas usually have more
developed economy than rural areas. As discussed in a previous section, economic
development of a region does influence the adjustment of people coming from that
region.
Academic Level (Undergraduate Versus Graduate)
Research holds that undergraduate students experience more difficulties than
graduate students, which may stem from the fact that graduate students have typically
gone through more of a maturation process.
Research results show that graduate students tend to experience more difficulties in
social activities. Olaniran (1996) found that graduate foreign students experience more
social difficulties than their undergraduate counterparts although the effect was only true
for intrapersonal situations (p.80). Cheng (1999) also found that graduate students
experienced significantly more problems than undergraduate students in the following
problem areas: Social Personal, Religious Service, and Student Activity.
Recent research concurs that, in general, undergraduate students face more
difficulties and adjustment problems than graduate students. Graduate students are more
likely to succeed academically, they face fewer problems in their lives, and they feel less
alienation. Konyu-Fogel (1993) found that graduate students had significantly less
academic adjustment difficulties than undergraduate international students (p.223).
Shabeeb (1996) found that Saudi and Arabian Gulf graduate students experience fewer
difficulties in orientation service than undergraduate students from the same countries.
Stafford, Marion, and Salter (1980) found that Undergraduates reported significantly
(p=.05) greater levels of difficulty than did graduate students with English language,
academic course work, finances, food, unfriendliness of the community, and maintaining
cultural customs (p.41).
From Xias (1991) study, it can be inferred that graduate Asian students reported less
problems in all of the MISPIs 11 problems areas. He concluded that in general, Asian
graduate students faced fewer problems and were more likely to succeed academically
than were their undergraduate counterparts (p. 134). Porter (1966) found that graduate
foreign students checked fewer problems than undergraduate students. Schram and
Lauver (1988) noticed that graduate status was negatively correlated with alienation.
One important reason for international undergraduate students experiencing more
difficulties than graduate students is that the undergraduate years are important for an
individual to develop in all around ways. Even though coming from a foreign country,
international graduate students have already gone through more of the normal maturation
process. International undergraduate students, however, may need to bear the stress of
identity conflict related to personal development in late adolescence and early
adulthood(Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001, p.153).
40
Research on American undergraduate students may also be applicable to

international undergraduate students. Research on American undergraduate students
revealed that they undergo great changes during undergraduate years. Pascarella and
Terenzinis (1991) How College Affects Students was a landmark summary of research
on the impact of college on individual students (Nuss, 1996, p.36). They indicated that
Students not only make statistically significant gains in factual knowledge and in a
range of general cognitive and intellectual skills; they also change on a broad array
of value, attitudinal, psychosocial, and moral dimensionsThe research portrays
the college student as changing in an integrated way, with change in any one area
appearing to be part of a mutually reinforcing network or pattern of change in other
areas. Such a tendency in the evidence is generally consistent with the theoretical
models of Chickering (1969) and Heath (1968), both of whom envision maturation
during college as holistic in nature and embracing many facets of individual change.
(pp.557-558).
Similar maturation changes may also happen to international students during their
undergraduate years. No comparison research has been done among American and
international students to relate their maturation processes.
In summary, undergraduate students may face more adjustment difficulties than
graduate students. The reason may be because undergraduate students have to undergo
their maturation process at the same time as adjustment. More comparative research
among American and international undergraduate students is needed.
Because of the great differences among undergraduate and graduate students, it
would be difficult to study both groups of students in one study. This study will
concentrate on international graduate students.
College Size
Some research also indicates that adjustment of international students is related to the
size of the colleges they attend. Hagey (as cited in Spaulding & Flack, 1976) studied
Middle Eastern students at colleges and universities in Oregon and found that adjustment
problems are related to such background factors as size of school attended (p.50).
Selltiz (as cited in Pruitt, 1978) found that social isolation for international students is
not so likely to occur in small colleges and towns (p.145).
This study will be carried out at two universities, which somewhat covers the
variable of college size. The two universities are Florida State University and Georgia
State University. The two universities are slightly different in size, and they are both state
universities. There are some differences among the two universities, which will be
discussed in later sections.
Pre-departure Knowledge about the United States
According to Pruitt (1978), knowledge about the United States prior to their arrival is
conducive to adjustment. Pre-departure knowledge is related to pre-departure orientation.
Since the majority of international students do not receive pre-departure orientation, this
variable will not be included in this study.
41
Use of Student Services

Research in general revealed that international students used campus student services
infrequently. Surdam and Collins (1984) found that the use of campus student services by
international students was infrequent and was not significantly related to adaptation
(p.244). Higbee as well as Win (as cited in Surdam and Collins, 1984) had similar
findings. Since most international students do not use student services very frequently,
this variable will not be included in my study.
Living Arrangement
After reviewing literature in the field, Lee et al. (1981) concluded that the living
arrangement is significantly related to adjustment. Stelltiz et al. (as cited in Lee et al
1981) found that students who lived in dormitories established more social relationships
than those who lived in apartment (p.19). Wilson (as cited in Lee et al, 1981) found that
living on campus and having an American roommate are related to high social activities
and involvement with Americans (p.19).
Compared with undergraduate students, graduate students have more freedom in
choosing housing, and most of them do live with other students from same ethnic
background. Because of this, the variable of living arrangement will not be included in
this study.
Employment at Home
A general literature review shows that employment at home is related with
adjustment. Lee et al. (1981) concluded from the literature that the prospect of
employment at home was studied in relation to perceived relevance of education
(p.19). This variable is included in this study.
Previous International Experience
Lee et al. (1981) concluded from the literature that previous international experience
is positively related to adjustment. Hull (as cited in Lee et al., 1981) reported the
following findings:
Foreign students who had no previous international experience were more likely to
report problems in adjustment to local food, local language, relations with the
opposite sex, contact with local people, and recreation. Students who had traveled
abroad for more than one month had fewer adjustment problems. (p.20).
Consequently, this variable will be included in the study.
National Status Accorded
Lee et al. (1981) found that Morris was the only researcher to study national status
and found slight support for the relationship among national status variables and
adjustment variables (p.20), and so it will not be included in this study.
42
Orientation
Orientation at the host institution plays an important role in the adjustment of
international students. Most colleges or universities spend one or two days at the
beginning of a semester to help new arriving international students adjust. Although they
are crucial and valuable, current orientations are not 100% effective for the following
reasons. First, adjustment is an ongoing process while most orientation programs last for
only one or two days. Second, students may not be able to fully benefit from orientation
programs because they are tired from their travels and their English language is not good
enough at that time (Dolan, 1997). Whats more, they may receive too much information
at one time. Research has been done on orientation programs and many suggestions have
been made. One extremely important and related suggestion is to provide orientation for
international students in their home countries before they arrive at their host campus.
International students have a great interest in obtaining information about the United
States before they depart from their home countries and they can benefit greatly from
at-home orientations. Sami (1986) found that the participant responses indicate
international students interest and needs for adequate orientation programs at home
before leaving their native land (p.88). Furthermore, preparation is conducive to their
adjustment. Aydin (1997) found that expectations are significant for adjustment. Predeparture preparation helps to form expectations which are closer to the reality at the U.S.
campuses, and lead to good adjustment. Pruitt (1978) also found that pre-departure
knowledge about the United States seems to contribute to adjustment (p.146). However,
there is the problem of logistics and increased costs associated with at-home orientation.
Sending orientation materials to international students prior to their departure from
their home countries might be a way to prepare them for university life in the United
States without incurring too much cost. However, relatively few pre-departure materials
have been sent to international students in advance. Results from this study might serve
purposes for pre-departure preparation materials.
Research, in general, concurs that orientation is helpful to adjustment. Since the
majority of international students attended orientation programs offered by the university,
this variable will not be included in this study.
In this chapter, adjustment problems of international students were explored from the
perspectives of cultural encounter, daily life activities, and academic study. Social and
academic adjustments of international students were also discussed. On the bases of
these, adjustment related factors were considered, including resilience characteristics,
age, length of study, gender, country of origin, marital status, English proficiency level,
sources of support, major fields of study, parental educational background, perceived
program relevance and quality, academic level, college size, pre-departure knowledge
about the United States, use of student services, living arrangements, employment at
home, previous international experience, national status accorded, and orientation.
Among these factors, resilience characteristics were examined for the first time ever in
this context in order to better understand adjustment.
After reviewing the literature relating to adjustment factors, the author found gaps in
previous research and postulated hypothesis.
The table summarizing the literature on major background factors is given in
Appendix E.
43
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the purpose of the study, research questions and methods,
population and sampling methods, questionnaire validity and reliability, and the analyses
and application of the research data.
Statement of Purposes
The purpose of the study is to explore relationships among resilience characteristics
and background factors, determine relationships among resilience characteristics and
adjustment problem areas, evaluate relationships among adjustment problem areas and
background factors, and identify resilience characteristics and background factors which
significantly predict adjustment. In particular, relevant to the adjustment of international
students studying in the United States, this research will study the significance of several
factors on adjustment, including resilience characteristics, Age, Length of Stay, Gender,
Country of Origin, Urban or Rural background, Marital Status, Sources of Support,
Parents Education, Perceived Relevance of Study, Previous International Experience,
Previous Professional Experience at home, English proficiency Level, Major Fields of
Study, and different Universities.
Research Questions
Research questions and hypotheses for this study are as follows:
1. What are the relationships among resilience characteristics and background factors?
Hypotheses:
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Age.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Previous International Experience.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Previous Professional Work Experience.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with TOEFL scores.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Length of Stay.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Gender.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Perceived Relevance of Study.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Campus.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Community of Origin.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Country of Origin.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Marital Status.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with sources of support.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Mothers Education.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Fathers Education.
Resilience characteristics are correlated with Major.
2. What are the relationships among adjustment problems and resilience characteristics?
Hypotheses:
44
Resilience characteristics are significantly negatively related with the eleven problem
areas as measured by the Michigan International Student Problem Inventory (MISPI).
3. What are the relationships among adjustment problems and background factors?
Hypotheses:
Adjustment problems are correlated with Age.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Previous International Experience.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Previous Professional Work Experience.
Adjustment problems are correlated with TOEFL Scores.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Length of Stay.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Gender.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Perceived Relevance of Study.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Campus.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Community of Origin.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Country of Origin.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Marital Status.
Adjustment problems are correlated with sources of support.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Mothers Education.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Fathers Education.
Adjustment problems are correlated with Major.
4. What factors significantly predict the adjustment of international graduate students?
Hypotheses:
Background factors predict adjustment.
Resilience characteristics predict adjustment.
Research Methods
In this study, two major instruments will be used. One is John Porters Michigan
International Student Problem Inventory (MISPI) (see Appendix D). MISPI is being
used because it is one of the most effective and frequently used instruments to measure
the adjustment of international students. By using this questionnaire, the author is on the
same footing with the other researchers. Further, the questionnaire has been found to be
a reliable instrument to identify adjustment problems of international students (Spaudling
& Flack, 1976). Pedersen (1991) also commented that the MISPI had been used in many
cases to identify problem areas for international students by counseling services. The
second questionnaire, ODRs Personal Resilience Questionnaire (PRQ), will be used to
measure resilience characteristics of international students. PRQ is being used because it
is a reliable instrument and the only comprehensive instrument available to measure
resilience characteristics.
From the survey results of these two questionnaires, the relationships among
adjustment problems and background factors can be studied, and the hypotheses
postulated above can be tested.
Population and Sample
In this section, the population and sample of this study is introduced.
45
Population in this Study

This study will be carried out at two places, one is Florida State University, the other
is Georgia State University. The populations studied included all international graduate
students enrolled during the spring semester of 2003. At FSU there were 852 such
students in the 2001-2002 academic year, accounting for 3% of the total student
population at FSU. Among them, 60% were male and 40% were female. The leading six
countries (or regions) in sending international students were China, Korea, Indian,
Turkey, Japan, and Taiwan (Japan and Taiwan had same number of international
students). Popular fields of study were engineering, education, computer and information
studies, biological or life sciences, social sciences and history, library sciences, business,
mathematics, and physical sciences. Graduate students accounted for 81% of this
population while undergraduate students accounted for 19%.
Comparing the international student body at FSU with other international students in
the U.S., the following similarities were found: male students outnumber female students;
Indian, China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan were the leading countries (regions) in sending
students to study in the United States; and computer and information studies, engineering,
physical science, business, and mathematics were popular areas of study.
There were also a number of differences. Turkey was the number four country in
sending students at FSU, while Turkey was the number tenth in national figures; areas
such as education and social sciences and history were popular fields for international
students at FSU, while they were not among the most popular area for international
students in general in the United States; and graduate international students at FSU
outnumbered undergraduate international students by a large margin.
Several reasons can be used to explain the discrepancies among the features of
international students at FSU and those in the United States on the whole. First, FSU has
several nationally ranked programs in education and in humanities, which are very
attractive to international students. Hence, it is not surprising that education and social
sciences were popular areas of study for international students. Second, FSU is a research
I university, which naturally attracts more graduate international students than
undergraduate international students.
In spite of the differences listed above, it can be concluded that, in general, the
composition of international student body at FSU resembles to the international student
body in the U.S.
The population at Georgia State University in this study is all the international
graduate students enrolled there during the spring semester of 2003. At GSU there were
1,004 such students in the 2001-2002 academic year, accounting for 6% of the total
student population. Among them, 51% were male and 49% were female. The leading six
countries (or regions) in sending international students were China, Indian, Korea,
Turkey, Taiwan, Indonesia and Thailand. Popular fields of study were business
management and administration, computer and information sciences, biological or life
sciences, liberal arts, and education. A majority of the international students are graduate
students.
The populations of international graduate students from the two universities are
similar in size. FSU had a school of engineering, and therefore FSU had more
international graduate students majoring in engineering-related fields. GSU had a large
46
computer department, and therefore, GSU had more international graduate students
majoring in computer science. Nevertheless, computer science and engineering fields are
all popular areas for international students. In general, the population of graduate students
at GSU bears resemblance to that at FSU.
Study Sample
Since it was impossible to obtain name lists and email addresses of international
graduate students, all international graduate students were contacted through email by the
international centers at the two universities.
Milton (1986) gave a sample size formula for multiple regression studies. In order to
get the sample size, one must know the value of the following variables.
The researcher must supply the number of variables in the final model (k), the
anticipated overall R of the model (usually estimated on the basis of previous
research results), and the desired t-level (for example, approximately t=2 for p<.05;
t=3 for p< .01). He or she must also decide on a minimum addition to r-square when
the variable is entered last (?r) which, if attained, will assure a statistically
significant regression coefficient given the computed sample size. (p.114).
He gave a table to refer to a sample size of a simple random sample with t equals to 2 at
the confidence level of .05.
In order to determine the sample size for a multiple regression study, it is necessary
to derive an estimated R of the causal model from the existing literature. Al-Sharideh
and Goe (1998) carried out a similar regression study of the personal adjustment of
international students. Their model explained .669 of the variance. Using an effect size of
.005 addition to r-square, and an estimated R of .70, and 22 independent variables, a
minimum sample size of 263 is required. (Milton, 1996).
The following table summarizes the dependent variables and independent variables
for multiple regression analyses.
Table 1.
Dependent and Independent Variables for Multiple Regression Analyses.
Variables
Dependent Variable
Admission and
Selection;
Orientation Service;
Academic Record;
Social-Personal;
Living and Dining;
Health Service;
Religious Service;
English Language;
Student Activity;
Financial Aid;
Placement Service;
Description
Influence to the
adjustment problems
MISPI
Nature of the
variables
Interval or ratio
outcomes
47
Table 1 continued.
Variables
Possible
Independent
Variables
Resilience traits
1.Positive: The World
2.Positive: Yourself
3.Focused
4.Flexible:Thoughts
5.Flexible: Social
6.Organized
7.Proactive
8. Balance of the
seven traits
9. Age
10. Length of stay
11.Gender
Description
Influence to the
adjustment problems
PRQ
Nature of the
variables
Interval or ratio
outcomes
What is your age?

Numbers of year at FSU
(GSU)
Number of years in the United
States
Are you (Male, female)
The younger, the less the

problems.
The longer, the less the
problems.
Interval or ratio
outcomes
Interval or ratio
Male face less problems
Dichotomous
The closer the home

country is to the U.S.,
the less the difficulties.
Categorical
12.Country of origin
Country of origin
(Citizenship)
13.Community of
Origin (Urban or rural
background)
Are you from a large city,

small town or a rural village
Categorical
(three)
14.Marital status
What is your marital status?

A. Single
B. Single but previously
married
C. Married, but not
accompanied by
spouse
D. Married,
accompanied by
spouse
E. Married,
accompanied by
spouse and children
Categorical
15.English
proficiency level
Your TOEFL score

Your GRE verbal
The better the English,

the less the problems.
48
Interval or ratio
Table 1 continued.
Variables
Description
16. Sources of
support
What is your main source of

financial support:
A. Scholarship or
assistantship
B. Private foundation
C. Self or/and family
D. Home government or
agencies
17.Parents Education
Your parents highest level of

education (less than high
school, high school graduate,
some college, four-year
college, master, Ph.D.)
18.Major
Whats your major field of

study?
Do you feel what you have
learned is relevant to your
future career?
19.Perceived
Relevance of Study
20. Previous
International
Experience
21. Previous Work
Experience at home
Previously do you have

international experience?
If yes, how many months?
Do you have professional fulltime work experience at your
home country?
If yes, how many months
experience do you have?
22. Campus
Are you a FSU or GSU

student?
Influence to the
adjustment problems
Students with sources of
support tend to encounter
fewer adjustment
problems.
Nature of the
variables
Dichotomous
Categorical
Undecided
Categorical
Categorical
Categorical
Categorical
Dichotomous
Research Instruments
In this section, the validity and reliability of the used instruments are introduced.
Instruments
This study will use two survey instruments: the Michigan International Students
Problem Inventory (MISPI), developed by John Porter, and the Personal Resilience
Questionnaire (PRQ), developed by ODR (1993).
Porter developed the MISPI in 1962 and revised it in 1977. The MISPI is designed
to identify problems encountered by international students. The MISPI contains 132
items, which are evenly distributed into eleven problem areas. The following lists the
items under each category.
Admission-selection problems, items 1, 2, 3, 34, 35, 36, 67, 68, 69, 100, 101, 102.
Orientation service problems, items 4, 5, 6, 37, 38, 39, 70, 71, 72, 103, 104, 105.
49
Academic record problems, items 7, 8, 9, 40, 41, 42, 73, 74, 75, 106, 107, 108
Social-personal problems, items 10, 11, 12, 43, 44, 45, 76, 77, 78, 109, 110, 111
Living-dining problems, items 13, 14, 15, 46, 47, 48, 79, 80, 81, 112, 113, 114
Health service problems, items 16, 17, 18, 49, 50, 51, 82, 83, 84, 115, 116, 117
Religious service problems, items 19, 20, 21, 52, 53, 54, 85, 86, 87, 118, 119, 120
English language problems, items 22, 23, 24, 55, 56, 57, 88, 89, 90, 121, 122, 123
Student activity problems, items 25, 26, 27, 58, 59, 60, 91, 92, 93, 124, 125, 126
Financial aid problems, items 28, 29, 30, 61, 62, 63, 94, 95, 96, 127, 128, 129
Placement service problems, items 31, 32, 33, 64, 65, 66, 97, 98, 99, 130, 131, 132. (Xia,
1991, p39).
The MISPI instrument is used in this paper for the following reasons. First, the
MISPI satisfies the purposes of this paper. The Michigan International Student Problem
Inventory is a quick and reliable way of identifying problems perceived by students on an
individual campus (Spaulding and Flack, 1976, p.33). By identifying the adjustment
problems, adjustment is determined. The purpose of this study is to explore relationships
among resilience characteristics and background factors, determine relationships among
resilience characteristics and adjustment problem areas, evaluate relationships among
adjustment problem areas and background factors, and identify resilience characteristics
and background factors which significantly predict adjustment. Hence the use of MISPI
directly satisfies the purposes of this paper.
Second, MISPI is the most widely used questionnaire to identify the adjustment
problems of international students. By using this questionnaire, it is possible to compare
the research results of this study effort with previous ones.
Although MISPI includes questions to gather background information, some
background factors which are not relevant to this study are not included. Some
demographic questions are asked to gather information for independent variables. Please
refer to the above table.
The PRQ gauges resilience from the perspective of seven subscales: Positive (World),
Positive (Self), Focused, Flexible (Thoughts), Flexible (Social), Organized, and
Proactive. It consists of 70 questions, with ten statements for each subscale.
Respondents are asked to choose among six-point likert scale with numbers one to six,
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Higher scores on the PRQ indicate
stronger resilience characteristics.
The two questionnaires together with the demo graphic questions were uploaded into
the website of surveypro. The MISPI is provided in the Appendices D. The PRQ is not
listed because it is a proprietary instrument of the ODR, Inc.
Validity of Instruments
According to Gay and Airasian (2000), validity is the most important feature of an
instrument because it [validity] is concerned with the appropriateness of the
interpretations (p.161) made from results of the instrument.
There are three kinds of validity: content validity, criterion-related validity, and
construct validity. Content validity is the degree to which a test measures an intended
area (p.163). Content validity requires that individual items test the relevant content area
and all items together cover the total content area. Criterion-related validity can be tested
50
through either concurrent or predictive validity. Concurrent validity is the degree to

which the scores on two tests taken at about the same time are correlated, and predictive
validity is the degree to which the scores on two test taken at different times are
correlated (p.163). Construct validity tests what an instrument really measures. Among
the above three validities, construct validity is the most important one. Sometimes
content validity and criterion-related validity are used to prove construct validity.
MISPI. Porter (1966) tested the concurrent validity of the MISPI. In the abstract of
Porters dissertation, the following procedures are listed. Porter administered the MISPI
to 108 foreign students and 50 United States students, and he also administered the
Mooney Problem Check ListCollege form (MPCL) to 46 foreign students and 47
United States students. From the MPCI, he obtained the mean score of 44.97 for the
American students and the mean score of 21.24 for the foreign students, with the
difference of the two mean scores significant at the .05 level. Hence, the MPCL
indicated a significant difference at .05 level among the two group of students. From the
MISPI, he obtained a mean score of 11.26 for the United States students and 15.06 for the
foreign students, with the difference of the two mean scores significant at the .05 level.
Hence, the results from the two questionnaires were correlated, both indicating a
significance at the .05 level among the two groups of students. Since MPCI was an
established questionnaire to measure the problems of American students, the correlation
of MISPI scores with MPCI score proved the concurrent validity of the MISPI. Since
criterion validity is tested either through concurrent validity or predictive validity, the
concurrent validity proved the criterion validity of the MISPI.
Porter also tested content validity, which is tested by finding out how well the
individual items contribute to the total validity (p.6). Porter hypothesized that each item
in the MISPI has a greater probability of being selected by international students than by
domestic students. The Chi-square test revealed a significant difference among the
proportion of items checked at least once by the two groups. Hence, his hypothesis was
proved, which in turn proved the content validity of the MISPI. Since sometimes
criterion-based validity and content validity are used to prove construct validity, the
criterion and content validity of the MISPI proved the concurrent validity of the
questionnaire. In summary, Porters research showed that the MISPI is a valid
instrument.
PRQ. ODRs document: Criterion-related validity of the Personal Resilience
Questionnaire (1996) showed the procedures of verifying the criterion-related validity of
the PRQ. In order to test the predicative validity of the PRQ for successful performance
(achievement) over change, ODR tried to find whether there was a link among the PRQ
and change-related performance (achievement) criteria. In order to capture varieties of
situations, five studies were conducted to determine the predictive validity of the PRQ for
job performance. The first study was carried out on a small division of a large financial
company. The members of the division constantly faced change in their work. The
criteria of this study were performance indicators including ones that measure
effectiveness during change. On the basis of the performance rating, individuals were
grouped into three groups: least effective performers, middle effective performers, and
highly effective performers. The three groups were then compared on the basis of the
51
scores from each of the seven resilience characteristics. The results suggested that three
characteristics of Positive: The World, Positive: Yourself, and Focused help to
differentiate people from different groups. The second study was carried out in a large
financial institution which is in the midst of major changes. Employees were categorized
into three groups: high-performance service personnel, high-performing managers, and
low performers. This categorization was used as the performance measure in this study.
The three groups were then compared on the basis of the scores from each of the seven
resilience characteristics. The results showed that Positive: The World, Flexible:
Social, Positive: Yourself, and Focused distinguish people from different groups. In
the third study, freshmen students were studied. For freshmen students, going to college
is a major change in life. Besides the resilience questionnaire, students were asked to fill
out a self-report questionnaire, which captured adaptation in eight themes. Results
showed all seven resilience characteristics are associated with one or more of the themes
in adaptation. In the fourth study, 26,168 cases were studied. The criteria of the study
were five job levels: top management, middle management, supervisory, nonmanagement, and self-employed. Except for the Organized characteristic, the rest of the
six resilience characteristics were directly related to job level (p.9). In the fifth study,
25,799 cases were studied. The criterion was exercise frequently. The results showed
that each of the resilience characteristics shows a relationship to frequency of exercise
(p.10). ODR summarized the research results of the five studies in the following.
In each case, one or more of the subcases of the PRQ proved to be a statistically
significant predictor of the chosen performance measure. Although not all of the
seven subscales showed significance in every study, each of them was significant in
one or more of the studies. The strongest predictors across studies appear to be the
Focused, Positive: The World, and Positive: Yourself categories (P.2).
Bryant (1995) found that the PRQ had sufficient stability and predictive validity to
warrant further development.
The PRQ was established by content experts on the basis of existing knowledge on
change and personal variables in adapting to change. Hence, the content validity was
proved. The content validity and criterion validity together proved the concurrent validity
of the questionnaire.
Reliability of Instruments
Reliability is the degree to which a test consistently measures whatever it is
measuring (Gay & Airasian, 2000, p.169). There are different types of reliability. The
most frequently used are test-retest reliability and internal consistency reliability. Testretest reliability is the degree to which scores on the same test are consistent over time
(p.171). Internal consistency reliability can be tested through three approaches: split-half,
Kuder-Richardson, and Cronbachs alpha (1951). To test a split-half reliability of an
instrument, one needs to administer it to a group, divide the instrument into two
comparable halves, and correlate the scores from the two halves, and evaluate the results
by using Spearman-Brown correction formula. Kuder-Richardon and Cronbachs alpha
estimate internal consistency reliability by determining how all items on a test relate to all
other test items and to the total test (p.174).
52
MISPI. Porter evaluated internal consistency reliability of the MISPI. He used the
Spearman-Brown split-half method and obtained a total scale reliability estimate of .67.
He also used the Kuder-Richardson formula and obtained the internal consistency
reliability of .58 and subscale reliability ranging from .47 to .76. He also tried to find the
correlation coefficients of the sub-scales of the MISPI, and sub-scales total. Sub-scale
correlation coefficients above .16 are significant at the .05 level for degrees of freedom of
106. It was noted that these sub-scale total coefficients range from .49 on the English
Language versus Total Scale to .78 for the Admission-Selection versus Total Scale
(Porter, 1966, p.8).
PRQ. Research has been done on the reliability of the PRQ. Using the Cronbach
approach, internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated for the seven
subscales of the PRQ. Positive (World) has .80 of Cronbachs alpha, Positive (Self) has
.78, Focus has .78, Flexible (Thoughts) has .73, Flexible (Social) has .72, Organized has
.69, and Proactive has .69.
Bryant (1995) tested the test-retest reliability of the PRQ, computing both amongperson and within-person correlations. The among-person correlations assess the
stability of each subscale(p.23), while within-person correlations reflect the stability of
subscale rank-order over time (p.24). He calculated the among-person correlations for
each subscales of the PRQ over different time intervals (two, four, six, and eight weeks),
and found that the correlations fell between .71 and .80, which showed acceptable
stability. From the statistical results, he concluded the among-person
correlationsdemonstrate the stability of PRQ subscales over short to moderate time
periods (p.26). He also found that the median within-person correlation for scores on
the PRQ for two-week, four-week, six-week, and eight-week periods were .91, .88, .88,
and .79, respectively. On the basis of the high correlations, he concluded that the PRQ
maintains a similar pattern upon repeated administrations of the PRQ (p.26).
Pilot Study
Before the two questionnaires were uploaded into the Surveypros website, a pilot
study was carried out on a small group of international students. Basically, they were
satisfied with the two questionnaires. They also gave some suggestions. Based on their
suggestions, the following minor modifications were made in the MISPI.
1. Replace foreign students with international students, as the latter term is the
prominently used one.
2. For item 25, regulations on student activities, add one word campus and change
the item into regulations on student campus activities. This change is made because the
students in the pilot studies did not understand the meaning of student activities.
3. Remove item 41, objective examinations (true-false, etc.), because nearly all of the
students in the pilot study thought the statement did not apply as graduate students
normally do not have objective tests. Nearly all of them expressed that they experienced
some difficulties in searching electronic databases in their study. Hence, the item 41 is
changed to searching electronic databases.
53
4. For item 47, insufficient clothing, most of the students in the pilot study felt it was
not a problem in their lives. One difficulty which they experienced in their lives was to
obtain credit cards. Hence item 47 was changed to obtaining credit cards.
5. For item 79, bathroom facilities cause problems, all of the students in the pilot study
felt it was not a problem in their lives. One difficulty which they experienced in their
lives was to learn how to drive cars. Hence, item 47 was changed to learning to drive
cars.
6. For item 112, finding a place to live among college students, all of the students in the
pilot study felt it was not a problem in their lives. One difficulty which they experienced
in their lives was to pay bills. Hence, item 47 is changed to paying bills.
7. One aspect which is not covered by the questionnaire is taking care of children. For
graduate students, some of them are married and have children. In my pilot study,
international students with children raised the factor of the difficulty in taking care of
children when studying in the United States. Hence, it was important to add the item of
taking care of children to the questionnaire. Since the MISPI has 12 items in 11
categories, the inward structure would be disrupted if one more item is added to the
MISPI questionnaire. So it would be appropriate to replace an item of lesser concern with
this one. From the literature review, it was found that most international students tend to
spend time with people from same or similar background. Therefore, item 114, lack of
invitation to visit in US homes presents a minor problem or no problem to them. Also
there exist some cultural programs which do allow international students to visit
American homes. Item 114, as a result, is changed to taking care of children.
Porter, the author of the MISPI was also contacted for the revision of his
questionnaire. He was supportative of the modifications. In short, the minor
modifications should not affect either the validity or reliability of the questionnaire. An
additional reliability test was run on the modified MISPI. Results in Chapter 4 proved
that it was also reliable.
Data Analyses
Data Collection
International centers at two universities sent emails to all international graduate
students to encourage their participation in the online survey. In the emails, the link to the
online survey was provided. International students went to a website to complete the two
questionnaires. Also, different international student organizations were contacted to urge
international students to complete the two questionnaires. After three weeks, a follow-up
email was sent to the students. Once the data had been collected, the independent
variables, such as Age, Gender and English Proficiency Level of respondents were
compared to those of the general populations of the international students at the two
universities.
The following data were obtained. From the MISPI, scores eleven problem areas
were obtained. From the resilience questionnaire, scores for seven resilience
characteristics were obtained for each student. From the questions on background factors,
statistics on other independent variables (except for resilience characteristics) were
obtained.
54
Analyses of Data
The following steps were followed in the data analyses.
1. Correlation studies were carried out among resilience characteristics and background
factors.
For interval variables, correlation studies were carried out.
For dichotomous variables, t-tests were carried out.
For categorical variable, ANOVA tests were carried out.
2. Correlation studies were carried out among resilience characteristics and adjustment
problems in all eleven areas.
3. Correlation studies were carried out among adjustment problem areas and background
factors.
4. Multiple regression analyses were carried out. All the independent variables were
entered. It is important to see beta() results.
Research Results from Survey Questionnaires
Research results are presented in tables and graphs (including multiple regression
results) to show differences in adjustment caused by each of the various factors
(characteristics). Survey results reveal the relationships among resilience characteristics,
background factors, and adjustment problems. Furthermore, predicting variables for
adjustment are identified.
Gaining Approval from Human Subjects Committee
Approval for the study has been obtained from the Human Subjects Committee. The
approval letter is attached to Appendix A.
55
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSES
In this chapter, data are analyzed by different statistical methods. At the beginning of
the chapter, data cleaning methods are introduced, the reliability of the modified MISPI is
further tested, and then descriptions are given of the demographic features of the
respondents from Florida State University (FSU) and Georgia State University (GSU).
In the analytical part, the following research steps have been carried out. First,
different statistical methods were used to explore relationships among resilience
characteristics and background factors. Second, correlation methods were used to identify
relationships among resilience characteristics and adjustment problems. Third, different
statistical methods were used to determine relationships among adjustment problems and
background factors. Fourth, multiple regression analyses were carried out to identify
what background factors and resilience characteristics predicted adjustment.
Designations of Data
All together 289 usable responses were collected from FSU (207) and GSU (82).
Before doing the analyses, data were cleaned and designations made dealing with missing
information and coding dummy variables for categorical variables.
Missing information was not substituted for the following dichotomous or
categorical variables: gender, place of origin (large cities, small towns, villages),
perceived relevance of study, marital status, financial support, mothers education, and
fathers education. Missing data were replaced by the group mean for the following
interval variables: months of previous international experience, months of professional
work experience, age, months at current university; and months in the US, and GPA, and
TOEFL scores.
In the case of TOEFL scores, the following steps were carried out.
First, convert the computer-based scores into paper and pencil scores by using the table
provided by ETS http://www.toefl.org/educator/edcncrd4.html, because some students
gave their paper and pencil scores while the others gave their computer based scores.
Second, replace the missing data with the group mean.
As to the MISPI questions, the following steps were carried out to deal with the
missing information for each respondent. First, added the scores of 12 questions under a
specific category. Second, counted the number of missing answers from the 12 questions.
Third, divided the sum of scores by the number of questions answered under that
category to get the average mean scores for each category.
As to Country of Origin, the following designations were provided for individual
countries.
1. Africa: Senegal, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya,
Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, and Togo.
2. Asia: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal,
Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand.
56
3. Europe: Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, England, France, Germany,

Netherlands, Iceland, Moldova, Norway, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Ukraine, and
Croatia.
4. Middle East: Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yugoslavia.
5. North America: Bahamas, and Canada.
6. South America: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Curacao, the
Netherlands Antilles, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Suriname,
Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Panama, and Jamaica.
In the following parts, countries of orgin refer to sets of countries of origin.
As to Academic Major, the following designations were provided for individual
majors.
1. Arts: anthropology, applied linguistics, applied math, art administration, economics,
German, history, psychology, French, and French literature.
2. Business: accounting, finance, general business, insurance, management, marketing,
MBA, MIS, real estate, and risk and insurance.
3. Communication: communication, interactive communication, and mass
communication.
4. Criminology: criminology.
5. Education: art education, curriculum and instruction, early childhood education,
evaluation, higher education, language education, math education.
multilingual/multicultural education, physical education, science ed., social science
education, sports administration, sports psychology, TESOL, and physical therapy.
6. Engineering: chemical engineering, civil, civil engineering, electrical engineering,
fluid mechanics, industrial engineering, and mechanical engineering.
7. Human Sciences: counseling psychology, and professional counseling.
8. Information Studies: information science, and library studies.
9. Sciences: actuarial science, atmospheric science, biochemistry, biology, biophysics,
CIS, chemistry, computer science, financial mathematics, genetics, geochemistry,
geology, marine biology, mathematics, metrology, neurobiology, oceanography, organic
chemistry, physical oceanography & Computer science, physics, statistics, theoretical
physics, and urban and regional planning.
10. Social science: Geography, economics, international affairs, political science,
political science, public administration, social work, and sociology.
11. Music: Choral conducting, music, and piano pedagogy.
12. Law.
13. Film.
14: Medicine: Pharmacy.
For multiple regression analyses, dichotomous variables were coded with 1 and 0
coding, and categorical variables were coded similarly.
Reliability of the Modified MISPI
Because of the minor changes of the MISPI, a reliability test was run for the
modified MISPI by using the SPSS. All the items in the modified MISPI were used for
the reliability test. The reliability coefficient alpha result was .9054. The high coefficient
alpha indicated that the modified MISPI was a reliable instrument.
57
Demographic Features for FSU Respondents

The study was carried out during the spring semester of 2003. The Opendoor
information for the FSU international student population was only available for the fall
2002. Since there was only a small change for the international graduate students
population between fall 2002 and spring 2003, the Opendoor information for the fall
2002 was used as a reference for the international student population for the Spring 2003.
From FSU, 207 usable responses were collected from a total of 853 international graduate
students. Background factors are listed below.
Gender
The following table reports the percentage of gender for FSU respondents.
Table 2.
FSU Respondents Gender.
Valid
Male
Female
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
116
90
206
1
207
56.0
43.5
99.5
.5
100.0
Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
56.3
56.3
43.7
100.0
100.0
Among the 207 respondents, 116 were male and 90 were female. Male students
accounted for 56% of the total responses and female 44%. According to the FSU
Opendoor data, among FSU international student population, about 60% were male and
40% were female. Hence, the gender distribution of FSU respondents resembles to that of
the FSU population to a great extent.
Community of Origin
The following table reports the percentages of the FSU respondents from large cities,
small towns, or rural villages.
Table 3.
FSU Respondents Original Places.
Valid
Missing
Total
Large city
Small Town
Rural Village
Total
Frequency
Percent
138
53
14
205
2
207
66.7
25.6
6.8
99.0
1.0
100.0
58

Percent
67.3
67.3
25.9
93.2
6.8
100.0
100.0
Among the respondents, around 67% came from large cities, 26% from small towns,
and 7% from rural villages. Hence, majority of the respondents came from large cities.
Marital Status
The following table reports the percentage of respondents with different marital
status.
Table 4.
FSU Respondents Marital Status.
Valid
Single
Single but previously married
Married but not accompanied
by spouse
Married accompanied by
spouse
spouse and children
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
53.6
2.9
6.8
Valid
Percent
54.4
2.9
6.9
Cumulative
Percent
54.4
57.4
64.2
111
6
14
43
20.8
21.1
85.3
30
14.5
14.7
100.0
204
3
207
98.6
1.4
100.0
100.0
Relative to Marital Status, about 57% were singles, and 43% were married. A
majority of the respondents were single students. Also, a majority of married students
were accompanied by their families.
Sources of Support
The following table reports the percentage of respondents with different sources of
support.
Table 5.
FSU Respondents Sources of Support.
Valid
Missing
Total
Scholarship or
assistantship
Private foundation
Self and/or family
Home government
or agencies
Other
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
163
78.7
79.5
Cumulative
Percent
79.5
3
22
15
1.4
10.6
7.2
1.5
10.7
7.3
81.0
91.7
99.0
2
205
2
207
1.0
99.0
1.0
100.0
1.0
100.0
100.0
59
A majority of the respondents (80%) received university scholarship or assistantship.

Following that, important sources of support were self and/or family support, and home
government or agency support.
Major fields of study
The following table reports the percentage of respondents with different majors.
Table 6.
FSU Respondents Major.
Valid
Missing
Total
Frequency
Arts
7
Business
12
Communication
5
Criminology
2
Education
44
Engineering
23
Human Science
2
Information Studies 11
Science
75
Social Science
14
Music
5
Total
200
7
207
Percent
3.4
5.8
2.4
1.0
21.3
11.1
1.0
5.3
36.2
6.8
2.4
96.6
3.4
100.0
Valid Percent
3.5
6.0
2.5
1.0
22.0
11.5
1.0
5.5
37.5
7.0
2.5
100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.5
9.5
12.0
13.0
35.0
46.5
47.5
53.0
90.5
97.5
100.0
The most popular area of study for FSU respondents was science, followed by
education and then engineering. Popular majors were computer science, education,
engineering, information studies, and mathematics. According to the Opendoor data,
among the FSU international student population, popular majors were engineering,
education, computer science, and information studies. Hence, popular majors of
respondents were the same as those of FSU international student population.
Country of Origin
The following table reports the percentage of respondents from different countries
(region) of origin.
Table 7.
FSU Respondents Country of Origin.
Valid
Africa
Asia
Europe
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
10
125
41
4.8
60.4
19.8
5.0
62.5
20.5
60
Cumulative
Percent
5.0
67.5
88.0
Table 7 continued.
Frequency
Missing
Total
Middle East
5
North America 3
South America 16
Total
200
7
207
Percent
Valid Percent
2.4
1.4
7.7
96.6
3.4
100.0
2.5
1.5
8.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
90.5
92.0
100.0
FSU respondents came from around 55 countries and regions, among which 60%
came from Asia, 20% from Europe, and 8% from South America. The leading countries
(or regions) of origin were China, Indian, Korea, Turkey, and Taiwan. According to the
FSU Opendoor data, leading countries (region) of origin were China, Korea, Indian,
Turkey, Japan, and Taiwan (Japan and Taiwan had the same number of international
students). Hence, country of origin for the FSU respondents closely resembleed to that of
the FSU international student population.
Parents Education
The following table reports the percentage of respondents with different level of
parents education.
Table 8.
FSU Respondents Father's Education.
Valid
Less than high

school
High school
graduates
Some college
Four-year college
Master
PhD
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
44
21.3
21.8
Cumulative
Percent
21.8
36
17.4
17.8
39.6
28
53
25
16
202
5
207
13.5
25.6
12.1
7.7
97.6
2.4
100.0
13.9
26.2
12.4
7.9
100.0
53.5
79.7
92.1
100.0
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
63
30.4
30.9
Cumulative
Percent
30.9
35
16.9
17.2
48.0
Table 9.
FSU Respondents Mother's Education.
Valid
Less than high

school
High school
graduates
61
Table 9 continued.
Some College
Four-year College
Master
PhD
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
30
51
14
11
204
3
207
14.5
24.6
6.8
5.3
98.6
1.4
100.0
14.7
25.0
6.9
5.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
62.7
87.7
94.6
100.0
Around 60% of respondents father received some college or above education, while
about 52% of respondents mother received some college or above education. Also,
Fathers Education is closely correlated with Mothers Education at all levels. From the
above two tables it might be inferred that majority of respondents came from middle or
upper classes.
Age
The following table reports the average ages of the FSU respondents.
Table 10.
FSU Respondents Average Age.
Age
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
207
18.0
57.0
29.769
The average age of the respondents was 29.8.

Previous International Experience and Professional Work Experience
The following table reports the average months of international experience and
professional work experience of the FSU respondents.
Table 11.
FSU Respondents Previous International Experience and Professional Work Experience.
N
No. of months of 207
previous
international
experience
No. of months of 207
professional work
experience
Minimum
.0
Maximum
204.0
Mean
24.785
Std. Deviation
30.4300
.0
360.0
40.100
52.7404
62
The respondents had an average of 25 months of previous international experience

and 40 months of professional full-time experience at home.
Length of Stay
The following table reports the average months of stay at the current university and
at the U.S. of the FSU respondents.
Table 12.
FSU Respondents Length of stay at Current University and in U.S.
N
No. of months at
201
current Univ.
No. of months at USA 200
Minimum
0
Maximum Mean
84
25.60
Std. Deviation
17.020
132
22.101
32.17
The respondents stayed at the current university for an average of 25 months, and
stayed in the U.S. for an average of 32 months.
TOEFL and GPA Scores
The following table reports the average TOEFL and GPA scores of the FSU
respondents.
Table 13.
FSU Respondents TOEFL and GPA.
TOEFL Scores
GPA at current university
N
180
190
Minimum
360
2
Maximum Mean
677
603.73
5
3.71
Std. Deviation
42.404
.305
The average TOEFL scores of the FSU respondents were 604, and their GPA was
3.7.
There were 207 usable FSU responses for this study, and the total number of FSU
international graduate students was 853. Total respondent rate is 24.3%. The above
analyses of demographic characteristics of respondents indicated that the respondents
were representative of the FSU population.
Demographic Features for GSU Respondents
The study was carried out during the spring semester of 2003. The Opendoor
information for GSU international student population was only available for the Fall
2002. Since there was only a small change for the international graduate students
63
population among fall 2002 and spring 2003, the Opendoor information for the fall 2002
was used as a reference for the international student population in the Spring 2003. From
GSU, 82 usable responses were collected from a total of 1,004 international graduate
students. Background characteristics are listed below.
Gender
The following table reports the percentage of GSU respondents with different
gender.
Table 14.
GSU Respondents Gender.
Valid
Frequency
Percent
31
37.8

Percent
37.8
37.8
51
62.2
62.2
Total
82
100.0
100.0
100.0
Approximately 38% of the GSU respondents were male, and 62% were female.
According to the GSU Opendoor data, 51% of the GSU international students were male
and 49% were female. Gender distribution of the GSU respondents did not represent the
gender distribution in the GSU population very well.
Community of Origin
The following table reports the percentage of the GSU respondents with different
Communities of Origin.
Table 15.
GSU Respondents Community of Origin.
Valid
Large Cities
Small Towns
Rural villages
Total
Frequency
Percent
62
18
2
82
75.6
22.0
2.4
100.0

Percent
75.6
75.6
22.0
97.6
2.4
100.0
100.0
Among the GSU respondents, 75.6% came from large cities, 22% from small towns,
and around 2.4% from rural villages. Hence, most respondents came from large cities.
64
Marital Status
The following table reports the percentage of GSU respondents with different marital
Status.
Table 16.
GSU Respondents Marital Status.
Valid
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
47
2
57.3
2.4
57.3
2.4
57.3
59.8
Married but not accompanied 3

by spouse
3.7
3.7
63.4
spouse
19
23.2
23.2
86.6
spouse and children
11
13.4
13.4
100.0
Total
82
100.0
100.0
Single
Single but previously married
Approxima tely 60% of the GSU respondents were single. The majority of the
married students were accompanied by their families.
Sources of support
sources of support.
Table 17.
GSU Respondents Sources of Support.
Valid
Scholarship or
assistantship
Private foundation
Self and/or family
Home government
or agencies
Other
Total
Frequency
Percent
62
75.6

Percent
75.6
75.6
1
15
1
1.2
18.3
1.2
1.2
18.3
1.2
76.8
95.1
96.3
3
82
3.7
100.0
3.7
100.0
100.0
65
Approximately 76% of the GSU respondents received university scholarships and

assistantships. Following that, another important source of support, over 18%, was self
and/or family support.
Major Fields of Study
fields of study.
Table 18.
GSU Respondents Major.
Valid
Arts
Business
Criminology
Education
Engineering
Human Sciences
Information Studies
Science
Social Science
Music
Medicine
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
5
22
3
7
1
1
1
29
9
1
1
80
2
82
Percent
6.1
26.8
3.7
8.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
35.4
11.0
1.2
1.2
97.6
2.4
100.0
Valid Percent
6.3
27.5
3.8
8.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
36.3
11.3
1.3
1.3
100.0
Cumulative Percent
6.3
33.8
37.5
46.3
47.5
48.8
50.0
86.3
97.5
98.8
100.0
Approximately 35% of the GSU respondents majored in science and 28% in

business. Computer science and biology were the two most popular majors for
respondents. GSU Opendoor data showed that popular majors were business management
and administration, computer and information sciences, and biological or life sciences.
Hence, majors of the GSU respondents resembled those of the GSU population to a great
extent.
Country of Origin
Countries (region) of Origin.
Table 19.
GSU Respondents Country of Origin.
Valid
Africa
Asia
Europe
Codes
Frequency
Percent
1
2
3
6
48
12
7.3
58.5
14.6
66
Valid
Percent
7.4
59.3
14.8
Cumulative
Percent
7.4
66.7
81.5
Table 19 continued.
Middle East
North America
South America
Total
Codes
Frequency
Percent
4
5
6
1
4
10
81
1
82
1.2
4.9
12.2
98.8
1.2
100.0
Missing
Total
Valid
Percent
1.2
4.9
12.3
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
82.7
87.7
100.0
GSU respondents came from 30 countries and regions. Leading countries of origin
were Indian and China, Turkey, and Jamaica. According to GSU Opendoor data, leading
Countries of Origin for the population were China, Indian, Korea, Turkey, and Taiwan.
Countries of Origin for GSU respondents represented those of the population to a great
extend.
Parents Education
The following tables report the percentage of the GSU respondents with different
level of parents education.
Table 20.
GSU Respondents Father's Education.
Valid
Missing
Total
Less than high

school
High school
graduates
Some college
Four-year college
Master
PhD
Total
Frequency
13
Percent
15.9
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

16.0
16.0
9.8
9.9
25.9
5
31
18
6
81
1
82
6.1
37.8
22.0
7.3
98.8
1.2
100.0
6.2
38.3
22.2
7.4
100.0
32.1
70.4
92.6
100.0
Table 21.
GSU Respondents Mother's Education.
Frequency
Valid
Less than high 18

school
High
school14
graduates
Some college 11
Percent
22.0

Percent
22.2
22.2
17.1
17.3
39.5
13.4
13.6
53.1
67
Table 21 continued.
Four-year
college
Master
PhD
Total
Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
23
28.0
13
2
81
1
82
15.9
2.4
98.8
1.2
100.0

Percent
28.4
81.5
16.0
2.5
100.0
97.5
100.0
Approximately 74% of respondents father received some college or above

education, while around 61% of respondents mother received some college or above
education. From this education data, it might be inferred that most of the GSU
respondents came from middle or upper classes from their home countries.
Age
The following table reports the average age of the GSU respondents.
Table 22.
GSU Respondents Average Age.
Age
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
82
19.0
44.0
27.478
The average age for GSU respondents was about 27.

Previous International Experience and Professional Work Experience at Home
The following table reports the average months of previous international experience
and professional work experience of the GSU respondents.
Table 23.
GSU Respondents Previous International Experience and Professional Work Experience.
N
No. of Months of Previous
82
International Experience
No. of Months of Professional 82
Work Experience at home
Minimum
.0
Maximum
324.0
Mean
28.597
.0
170.0
23.874
68
GSU respondents had an average of 29 months of previous international experience,

and an average of 24 months of professional work experience at home.
Length of Stay
The following table reports the average length of stay of GSU respondents.
Table 24.
GSU Respondents Length of Stay at Current University and in the U.S.
N
No. of Months 81
at Current
University
No. of Months 81
in US
Minimum
2
Maximum
108
Mean
25.12
Std. Deviation
20.258
144
35.99
26.401
GSU respondents stayed at the current university for an average of 25 months, and in
the U.S. for an average of 36 months.
TOEFL and GPA scores
The following table reports the average TOEFL and GPA scores for the GSU
respondents.
Table 25.
GSU Respondents TOEFL and GPA Scores.
N
TOEFL Scores 68
GPA
78
Minimum
470
2
Maximum
677
4
Mean
612.54
3.72
Std. Deviation
44.603
.319
The average TOEFL score for GSU respondents was 613 and their average GPA was
3.7.
There were only 82 usable respondents from GSU, which is not a large number out
of 1,004. Consequently, the GSU respondents may not be representative of the GSU
international graduate student population. However, the responses may be representative
of the population in certain background factors.
Abbreviation of Terms
The following are the abbreviations used in the following sections.
1. Groups one for Personal Resilience Characteristics
OPTIMISM refers to Positive: The World
69
ESTEEM refers to Positive: Yourself

FOCUS refers to Focused
COGFLEX refers to Flexible: Thoughts
SOCIAL refers to Flexible: Social
ORGANIZE refers to Organized
PROACTIV refers to Proactive
2. Group two for adjustment problem areas used in analytical tables
AVGADM refers to Admission and Selection problem area
AVGORIEN refers to Orientation Service problem area
AVGACADE refers to Academic Record problem area
AVGSOCIA refers to Social-Personal problem area
AVGLIVIN refers to Living and Dining problem area
AVGHEALT refers to Health Service problem area,
AVGRELIG refers to Religious Service problem area
AVGENGLI refers to English Language problem area
AVGACTIV refers to Student Activity problem area
AVGFINAN refers to Financial Aid problem area
AVGPLACE refers to Placement Service problem area
3. Group three for adjustment problems used in summary tables
Adm refers to Admission and Selection
Ori refers to Orientation Service
Aca refers to Academic Record
Soc refers to Social-Personal
Liv refers to Living and Dining
Heal refers to Health Service
Relig refers to Religious Service
Eng refers to English Language
Stud refers to Student Activity
Fin refers to Financial Aid
Pla refers to Placement Service
Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Background Factors
In this section, different statistical analyses were carried out to identify relationships
among resilience characteristics and background factors.
FSU Data Analyses
From FSU data, correlation studies were carried out for interval variables, t-test for
dichotomous variables, and One-way ANOVA and Tukey for categorical variables to
analyze the relationships among resilience characteristics and background factors.
Interval Background Factors. The following table reports correlation results for
interval variables.
70
Table 26.
Correlations Among Interval Variables (FSU).
OPTIMISM ESTEEM
FOCUS COGFLEX
Age Pearson
.071
.080 .177*
Correlatio
n
Sig. (2.311
.253
.011
tailed)
N
207
207
207
Internationa Pearson
-.055
.027
.031
l Correlatio
n
experience
Sig. (2.429
.696
.662
tailed)
N
207
207
207
Work
Pearson
.064
.076 .172*
Experience Correlatio
n
Sig. (2.359
.275
.013
tailed)
N
207
207
207
TOEFL Pearson
.052
.053
.001
Correlatio
n
Sig. (2.456
.450
.989
tailed)
N
207
207
207
Length of Pearson
.024
.037
.031
stay at Correlatio
current
n
Univ.
Sig. (2.735
.597
.653
tailed)
N
207
207
207
Length of Pearson
.022
.056
.068
stay at USA Correlatio
n
Sig. (2.752
.419
.333
tailed)
N
207
207
207
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
-.011
SOCIAL ORGANIZ PROACTI

E
V
-.002 .207**
.003
.875
.980
.003
.967
207
-.062
207
.029
207
.136*
207
-.076
.374
.683
.050
.275
207
.047
207
.050
207
.139*
207
.081
.500
.471
.045
.247
207
.096
207
.003
207
.092
207
.132
.171
.966
.188
.058
207
-.108
207
.014
207
.137*
207
-.088
.121
.838
.049
.207
207
-.081
207
.050
207
.090
207
-.100
.248
.470
.195
.152
207
207
207
207
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Age.

Findings: Focused and Organized were significantly correlated with Age.
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Previous International
Experience.
Findings: Organized was significantly correlated with Previous International
Experience.
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Previous Professional
Work Experience.
71
Findings: Focused and Organized were significantly correlated with Previous

Professional Work Experience.
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with TOEFL scores.
Findings: Resilience characteristics were not significantly correlated with TOEFL
scores.
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Length of Stay.
Findings: Resilience characteristics were not significantly correlated with Length of
Stay in the U.S. Organized is significantly correlated with Length of Stay at Current
University.
T-Test was carried out for the two dichotomous variables of Gender and Perceived
relevance of study.
Gender. The following table reports the T-test results for Gender.
Table 27.
Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU).
Levene's Test
t-test for
for Equality of
Equality of
Variances
Means
F Sig.
t
OPTIMISM
Equal
variances
assumed
.679 .411
-.008
Equal
variances not
assumed
ESTEEM
Equal
variances
assumed
.042 .837
FOCUS
Equal
variances
assumed
.101 .751
72
Sig. (2Mean Std. Error

tailed) Difference Difference
204
.993
-.0159
1.88401
-.008 183.4
12
.993
-.0159
1.90340
204
.983
.0416
1.89391
.022 194.5
08
.982
.0416
1.88553
.498
.619
.9653
1.93706
.022
Equal
variances not
assumed
df
204
Table 27 continued.
Levene's Test
t-test for
for Equality of
Equality of
Variances
Means
F Sig.
t
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZ
E
PROACTIV
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
df
.499 191.8
30
.461 .498
.068
.630 .428
204
.946
.1149
1.69252
.068 196.1
50
.946
.1149
1.68059
204
.188
-2.3579
1.78296
-1.328 194.3
20
.186
-2.3579
1.77558
204
.437
-1.4284
1.83350
-.794 201.7
76
.428
-1.4284
1.79916
-.432
204
.666
-.7096
1.64235
-.438 199.3
92
.662
-.7096
1.62100
-1.322
2.671 .104
-.779
1.430 .233

.619
.9653 1.93610
In the following p<.05 is considered as significant.
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Gender.

Findings: The contrast of male students with female students did not differ
significantly in the mean scores of any of the resilience characteristics. Hence, resilience
characteristics were not correlated with gender.
Perceived Relevance of Study. The following table reports the T-test results for
Perceived Relevance of Study.
73
Table 28.
Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU).
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
F
OPTIMIS Equal variances

M
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
ESTEEM Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
FOCUS Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
COGFLE Equal variances
X
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
SOCIAL Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
ORGANIZ Equal variances
E
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
PROACTI Equal variances
V
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
1.763
.105
.003
4.728
2.881
.004
.030
t-test for
Equality
of Means
Sig.
df
.186
.459
203
.647
1.9100
4.16277
.348 10.621
.734
1.9100
5.48113
.494
203
.622
2.0675
4.18212
.461 10.995
.654
2.0675
4.48085
203
.165
5.9306
4.25550
1.219 10.857
.249
5.9306
4.86698
-.845
203
.399
-3.1617
3.74223
-1.264 13.011
.228
-3.1617
2.50105
203
.644
1.8304
3.95367
.662 12.693
.520
1.8304
2.76510
203
.079
7.1204
4.02773
1.851 11.294
.090
7.1204
3.84604
203
.932
.3083
3.63161
.080 11.025
.937
.3083
3.84006
.746
.954
1.394
.031
.091
.463
.953
1.768
.863
.085

Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Perceived Relevance of

Study.
Findings: The contrast of students who thought that their study were relevant to
future goals with students who thought their study were not relevant to future goals did
not differ significantly in the mean scores of any of the resilience characteristics. Hence,
resilience characteristics were not correlated with Perceived Relevance of Study.
ANOVA test was carried out for categorical variables.
Community of Origin. The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for
Community of Origin.
74
Table 29.
One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
GENDER
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
248.575
36408.030
36656.605
194.238
36809.986
37004.224
299.366
38334.946
38634.312
11.171
29686.420
29697.590
134.475
32932.520
33066.995
592.980
34216.045
34809.024
115.936
27754.874
27870.810
.090
50.081
50.172
df
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
201
203
Mean Square
F
124.287 .690
180.238
Sig.
.503
97.119 .533
182.228
.588
149.683 .789
189.777
.456
5.585 .038
146.962
.963
67.238 .412
163.032
.663
296.490 1.750
169.386
.176
57.968 .422
137.400
.656
.045 .181
.249
.835
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Community of Origin.

Findings: The contrasts of students from different places did not differ significantly
in the mean scores of any of the resilience characteristics. Hence, resilience
characteristics were not correlated with Community of Origin.
Country of Origin. The following table reports the results for one-way ANOVA for
Country of Origin.
Table 30.
One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
2420.712
33522.468
35943.180
2781.187
33038.733
35819.920
4012.653
33412.942
37425.595
75
df Mean Square
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
Sig.
484.142
172.796
2.802
.018
556.237
170.303
3.266
.007
802.531
172.232
4.660
.000
Table 30 continued.
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
2591.894
25760.061
28351.955
2454.149
29790.171
32244.320
1737.978
32823.542
34561.520
3048.765
23786.230
26834.995
df Mean Square
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
Sig.
518.379
132.784
3.904
.002
490.830
153.558
3.196
.009
347.596
169.194
2.054
.073
609.753
122.609
4.973
.000
Table 31.
Tukey Analyses.
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence

Interval
Dependent
(I)
(J)
Variable COUNTRY COUNTRY
G
G
ESTEEM
2
1 -13.0000*
4.28867
FOCUS
2
1 -16.3600*
4.31289
COGFLEX
2
3 -8.1840*
2.52460
SOCIAL
2
6 -9.6890*
3.31043
PROACTIV
2
3 -8.6480*
2.42595
2
6 -11.3280*
2.94006
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
.033
.003
.017
.044
.006
.002
Lower Bound
Upper
Bound
-25.3446
-28.7743
-15.4509
-19.2178
-15.6309
-19.7907
-.6554
-3.9457
-.9171
-.1602
-1.6651
-2.8653
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Country of Origin.

Findings: The contrasts of students from different sets of countries differed
significantly in the mean scores of Positive: The World, Positive: Yourself, Focused,
Flexible: Thought, Flexible: Social, and Proactive. Hence, these resilience characteristics
were correlated with Country of Origin. A further run of the Tukey analyses reviewed the
following results:
Asian students versus African students contrast was statistically significant at the .05
level, with the Asian student group having the lower mean in Positive: Yourself.
Asian students versus African students contrast was statistically significant at the .05
level, with the Asian student group having the lower mean in Focused.
Asian students versus European students contrast was statistically significant at the
.05 level, with the Asian student group having the lower mean in Flexible: Thoughts.
Asian students versus South American students contrast was statistically significant at
the .05 level, with the Asian student group having the lower mean in Flexible: Social.
Asian students versus European students contrast was statistically significant at the
.05 level, with the Asian student group having the lower mean in Proactive.
76
Asian students versus South American students contrast was statistically significant at
the .05 level, with the Asian student group having the lower mean in Proactive.
Marital Status. The following table reports the results for one-way ANOVA for
Marital Status.
Table 32.
One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU).
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square
Sig.
OPTIMISM
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
220.967
36362.072
36583.039
4
199
203
55.242
182.724
.302
.876
ESTEEM
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
254.180
36703.977
36958.157
4
199
203
63.545
184.442
.345
.848
FOCUS
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
854.199
37719.737
38573.936
4
199
203
213.550
189.546
1.127
.345
COGFLEX
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
529.995
29020.882
29550.877
4
199
203
132.499
145.834
.909
.460
SOCIAL
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
921.528
32120.393
33041.922
4
199
203
230.382
161.409
1.427
.226
ORGANIZE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
495.561
33981.669
34477.230
4
199
203
123.890
170.762
.726
.575
PROACTIV
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
930.193
26922.435
27852.627
4
199
203
232.548
135.289
1.719
.147
GENDER
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.811
49.360
50.172
4
199
203
.203
.248
.818
.515
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Marital Status.

Findings: The contrasts for students with different marital status did not differ
characteristics were not correlated with Marital Status.
77
Sources of Support. The following table reports the results for one-way ANOVA for
Sources of Support.
Table 33.
One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1282.724
df Mean Square
4
320.681
35482.524
200
177.413
36765.249
1900.305
204
4
475.076
34885.382
200
174.427
36785.688
1982.717
204
4
495.679
36339.596
200
181.698
38322.312
1210.011
204
4
302.503
28516.946
200
142.585
29726.956
1068.813
204
4
267.203
32054.143
200
160.271
33122.956
450.469
204
4
112.617
34403.921
200
172.020
34854.390
1847.834
204
4
461.958
26042.918
200
130.215
27890.751
204
Sig.
1.808
.129
2.724
.031
2.728
.030
2.122
.079
1.667
.159
.655
.624
3.548
.008
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with sources of support.

Findings: Positive: Yourself, Focused, and Proactive were correlated with Sources of
Support.
78
Parents Education. The following table reports the results for one-way ANOVA for
Parents Education.
Table 34.
One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education (FSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
GENDER
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
803.733
df Mean Square
5
160.747
35466.643
196
180.952
36270.376
580.430
201
5
116.086
36251.194
196
184.955
36831.624
328.849
201
5
65.770
37758.676
196
192.646
38087.525
751.941
201
5
150.388
28749.272
196
146.680
29501.213
174.015
201
5
34.803
32254.104
196
164.562
32428.119
837.461
201
5
167.492
33333.693
196
170.070
34171.153
131.958
201
5
26.392
27673.567
196
141.192
27805.525
.872
201
5
.174
48.791
196
.249
49.663
201
79
Sig.
.888
.490
.628
.679
.341
.887
1.025
.404
.211
.957
.985
.428
.187
.967
.701
.624
Table 35.
One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1949.163
df Mean Square
5
389.833
34633.876
198
174.919
36583.039
876.980
203
5
175.396
36081.177
198
182.228
36958.157
1261.431
203
5
252.286
37312.505
198
188.447
38573.936
1424.833
203
5
284.967
28126.044
198
142.051
29550.877
943.572
203
5
188.714
32098.350
198
162.113
33041.922
1223.568
203
5
244.714
33253.662
198
167.948
34477.230
717.156
203
5
143.431
27135.472
198
137.048
27852.627
203
Sig.
2.229
.053
.963
.442
1.339
.249
2.006
.079
1.164
.328
1.457
.206
1.047
.392
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with parents education.

Findings: One-way ANOVA analyses showed that contrast groups for different
levels of education for respondents fathers did not differ significantly in the mean scores
of any of the resilience characteristics. One-way ANOVA also showed that contrast
groups for different levels of education for respondents mothers did not differ
characteristics were not correlated with Parents Education.
Major. The following table reports the results for one-way ANOVA for Major.
80
Table 36.
One-way ANOVA for Major Fields of Study (FSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
3885.890
df
10
Mean
Square
388.589
32136.490
189
170.034
36022.380
3665.854
199
10
366.585
32230.146
189
170.530
35896.000
2005.987
199
10
200.599
35705.933
189
188.920
37711.920
2011.806
199
10
201.181
26261.749
189
138.951
28273.555
3695.864
199
10
369.586
28467.716
189
150.623
32163.580
2543.629
199
10
254.363
31919.791
189
168.888
34463.420
2008.559
199
10
200.856
24838.316
189
131.420
26846.875
199
Sig.
2.285
.015
2.150
.023
1.062
.394
1.448
.162
2.454
.009
1.506
.140
1.528
.132
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Major.

Findings: Positive: The World, Positive: Yourself, and Flexible: Social were
correlated with Major.
Summary. The following summarizes the significant relationships among resilience
characteristics and background factors for FSU responses.
81
Table 37.
Summary of Significant Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Background
Factors (FSU).
Positive:
The world
Age
Previous
International
Experience
Previous
work
experience
TOEFL
Length of
stay at
current Univ.
Length of
stay at USA
Gender
Relevance of
Study
Community
of Origin
Country of
Origin
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Fathers
education
Mothers
education
Major
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
X
X
Proactive
The above table shows that resilience characteristics were not correlated with
TOEFL scores, Length of Stay in U.S., Gender, Relevance of Study, Community of
Origin, Marital Status, and Parents Education. However, certain resilience characteristics
were correlated with Age, Previous International Experience, Previous Work Experience,
Length of Stay at Current University, Country of Origin, Sources of Support, and Major.
GSU Data Analyses
From GSU data, correlation studies were carried out for interval variables,
T-tests for dichotomous variables, and One-way ANOVA and Tukey analyses for
categorical variables to analyze the relationships among resilience characteristics and
background factors.
Correlations for Interval Variables. The following table reports the correlation results
for interval variables.
82
Table 38.
Correlations Among Interval Variables (GSU).
Age
OPTIMIS ESTEEM FOCUS

M
.050
.066
.157
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2.654
.554
.160
tailed)
N
82
82
82
Previous
Pearson
.202
.080
-.023
Internation Correlation
Experience
Sig. (2.069
.474
.840
tailed)
N
82
82
82
Previous
Pearson
.032
.150
.207
Work
Correlation
Experience
Sig. (2.774
.178
.062
tailed)
N
82
82
82
TOEFL
Pearson
.032
.006
.085
Correlation
Sig. (2.776
.955
.450
tailed)
N
82
82
82
Pearson
Time at
.144
.109
.207
Correlation
Current
University
Sig. (2.198
.330
.062
tailed)
N
82
82
82
Time At
Pearson
.135
.103
.117
USA
Correlation
Sig. (2.228
.359
.297
tailed)
N
82
82
82
COGFLEX SOCIAL ORGANIZ PROACTI

E
V
.101
.075
-.010
-.077
.368
.505
.926
.491
82
.184
82
.039
82
-.003
82
.197
.099
.728
.981
.076
82
-.033
82
.035
82
.129
82
-.159
.771
.757
.247
.154
82
.247*
82
-.034
82
-.108
82
.160
.025
.763
.333
.151
82
.200
82
.075
82
.044
82
.210
.072
.505
.696
.059
82
.165
82
.098
82
.041
82
.077
.138
.383
.717
.494
82
82
82
82
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with age.

Findings: Resilience characterizes were not significantly correlated with Age.
Experience.
Findings: Resilience characteristics were not significantly correlated with Previous
International Experience.
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Previous Work
Experience.
83

Work Experience.
Findings: Flexible: Thoughts was significantly correlated with TOEFL scores.
Findings: Resilience characteristics were not significantly correlated with Length of
Stay.
T-Tests were carried out for the two dichotomous variables of Gender and Perceived
Relevance of Study.
Table 39.
Independent Samples Test for Gender (GSU).
OPTIMIS
M
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLE
X
SOCIAL
ORGANIZ
E
PROACTI
V
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
1.320
.254
-.467
80
.642
-1.5965
3.42139
.622
-1.5965
3.22790
.899
-.495 74.6
67
.254 80
.800
.9273
3.64438
.793
.9273
3.52564
.162
.263 70.1
19
.187 80
.852
.6452
3.45715
.843
.6452
3.24957
.783
.199 75.2
66
2.018 80
.047
5.7331
2.84044
.049
5.7331
2.84990
.037
2.012 62.8
10
-1.352 80
.180
-3.8786
2.86885
.148
-3.8786
2.65463
.723
-1.461 77.4
93
-1.533 80
.129
-5.0500
3.29366
.123
-5.0500
3.22979
.861
-1.564 67.4
41
.223 80
.824
.5655
2.53695
.222 62.7
65
.825
.5655
2.54598
.016
1.989
.076
4.489
.127
.031
t-test for
Equality
of Means
84

tailed) DifferenceDifference

Findings: Male students versus female students contrast was statistically significant
at the .05 level, with male students had higher mean in Flexible: Thoughts.
Table 40.
Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (GSU).
OPTIMIS
M
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLE
X
SOCIAL
ORGANIZ
E
PROACTI
V
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Levene'
s Test
for
Equalit
y of
Varianc
es
F
Sig.
.006
.939
1.875
80
.064
10.9105
5.81889
1.605
6.796
.154
10.9105
6.79689
3.211
80
.002
19.1200
5.95474
2.505
6.632
.043
19.1200
7.63423
3.387
80
.001
19.0095
5.61168
2.966
6.841
.021
19.0095
6.40814
1.666
80
.100
8.2743
4.96769
1.918
7.661
.093
8.2743
4.31456
1.570
80
.120
7.7867
4.95917
1.931
7.968
.090
7.7867
4.03215
.546
80
.586
3.1619
5.78823
.519
7.030
.619
3.1619
6.08804
1.875
80
.064
8.0800
4.31021
2.359
8.088
.046
8.0800
3.42540
1.072
.113
.809
.971
.001
1.707
t-test for
Equality
of Means
.304
.738
.371
.327
.977
.195
df Sig. (2Mean Std. Error


Study.
85
Findings:
The contrast among students who thought that their study was relevant to their
future study versus those who thought that their study was not relevant to their future
study was statistically significant at the .05 level, with the first group having a higher
mean in Positive: Yourself.
The contrast among students who thought that their study was relevant to their
future study versus those who thought that their study was not relevant to their future
study was statistically significant at the .05 level, with the first group having higher mean
in Focused.
ANOVA tests were carried for categorical variables.
Table 41.
One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
177.454
17927.326
18104.780
132.689
20369.799
20502.488
10.807
18432.315
18443.122
8.696
13069.548
13078.244
29.426
12955.355
12984.780
186.225
17038.165
17224.390
22.208
9911.305
9933.512
df Mean Square
2
79
81
2
79
81
2
79
81
2
79
81
2
79
81
2
79
81
2
79
81
Sig.
88.727
226.928
.391
.678
66.344
257.846
.257
.774
5.403
233.320
.023
.977
4.348
165.437
.026
.974
14.713
163.992
.090
.914
93.113
215.673
.432
.651
11.104
125.460
.089
.915
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Community of Origin

(large cities, small towns, and villages)
Findings: The contrasts for students from different places did not differ significantly
characteristics were not significantly correlated with Community of Origin.
86
Country of Origin. The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for
Country of Origin.
Table 42.
One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
2082.908
df Mean Square
5
416.582
15997.783
75
213.304
18080.691
1405.343
80
5
281.069
18671.200
75
248.949
20076.543
850.601
80
5
170.120
17113.350
75
228.178
17963.951
1259.033
80
5
251.807
11676.967
75
155.693
12936.000
578.608
80
5
115.722
12182.083
75
162.428
12760.691
785.732
80
5
157.146
16011.700
75
213.489
16797.432
1080.234
80
5
216.047
8809.050
75
117.454
9889.284
80
Sig.
1.953
.096
1.129
.352
.746
.592
1.617
.166
.712
.616
.736
.599
1.839
.115

Findings: The contrasts for students from different countries did not differ
characteristics were not correlated with Country of Origin.
87
Marital Status. The following reports the one-way ANOVA results for Marital
Status.
Table 43.
One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
2607.915
15496.865
18104.780
577.392
19925.096
20502.488
807.920
17635.202
18443.122
135.437
12942.807
13078.244
1460.489
11524.291
12984.780
885.992
16338.398
17224.390
755.339
9178.173
9933.512
df Mean Square
4
651.979
77
201.258
81
4
144.348
77
258.767
81
4
201.980
77
229.029
81
4
33.859
77
168.088
81
4
365.122
77
149.666
81
4
221.498
77
212.187
81
4
188.835
77
119.197
81
F
3.240
Sig.
.016
.558
.694
.882
.479
.201
.937
2.440
.054
1.044
.390
1.584
.187
Table 44.
Tukey Analyses
Mean Std. Error Sig.
95%
Differenc
Confidence
e (I-J)
Interval
Dependent (I) What is your (J) What is your
Lower
Variable marital status? marital status?
Bound
OPTIMISM
2
4 32.2105* 10.54616 .025
2.7501
Upper
Bound
61.6709
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with marital status.

Findings: One-way ANOVA revealed that Positive: The World was significantly
correlated with Marital Status. A run of the Turkey analyses revealed the following
result. The contrast among single but previously married students versus married and
accompanied by spouse students was statistically significant at the .05 level, with the
single but previously married group having the higher mean in Positive: The World.
Sources of Support. The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for
Sources of Support.
88
Table 45.
One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (GSU).
OPTIMISM Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
ESTEEM Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
FOCUS
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
COGFLEX Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
SOCIAL
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
ORGANIZE Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
PROACTIV Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
990.445
17114.335
18104.780
3576.088
16926.400
20502.488
1449.888
16993.234
18443.122
511.934
12566.310
13078.244
561.697
12423.084
12984.780
1003.285
16221.105
17224.390
739.757
9193.755
9933.512
df
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
Mean Square
247.611
222.264
F
1.114
Sig.
.356
894.022
219.823
4.067
.005
362.472
220.691
1.642
.172
127.984
163.199
.784
.539
140.424
161.339
.870
.486
250.821
210.664
1.191
.322
184.939
119.399
1.549
.197
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Source of Support.

Findings: One-way ANOVA revealed that students with different sources of support
differed significantly in the means scores of Positive: Yourself. A run of the Turkey
analyses did not produce any results because of the limited number of respondents.
Parents Education. The following tables report the one-way ANOVA results for
Parents Education.
Table 46.
One-way ANOVA for Father's Education (GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
536.898
17541.324
18078.222
805.749
18816.474
19622.222
1039.552
16902.670
17942.222
2078.426
10857.574
12936.000
89
df
Mean Square
Sig.
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
107.380
233.884
.459
.805
161.150
250.886
.642
.668
207.910
225.369
.923
.471
415.685
144.768
2.871
.020
Table 46 continued.
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
127.538
12487.079
12614.617
79.041
17054.688
17133.728
99.007
9834.129
9933.136
df
Mean Square
Sig.
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
25.508
166.494
.153
.978
15.808
227.396
.070
.997
19.801
131.122
.151
.979
Table 47.
Tukey Analyses
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Dependent (I) fathers (J) fathers

Variable
highest
highest
education education
COGFLEX
4
5 -11.0968*
3.56547
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Sig.
.030
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
-21.5247
-.6689
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Fathers Education.

Findings: One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education revealed that Flexible: Thoughts
was significantly correlated with Fathers Education. A run of the Turkey analyses
revealed that the contrast among the group whose father has four-year college education
versus the students whose father has a masters education was significant at the .05 level,
with the second group having a higher mean in Flexible: Thoughts.
Table 48.
One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
448.971
df Mean Square
5
89.794
17645.943
75
235.279
18094.914
1207.135
80
5
241.427
19274.742
75
256.997
20481.877
480.520
80
5
96.104
17948.319
75
239.311
18428.840
80
90
F
.382
Sig.
.860
.939
.461
.402
.846
Table 48 continued.
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
146.406
df Mean Square
5
29.281
12833.544
75
171.114
12979.951
607.556
80
5
121.511
12325.876
75
164.345
12933.432
489.698
80
5
97.940
16734.400
75
223.125
17224.099
333.216
80
5
66.643
9570.883
75
127.612
9904.099
80
F
.171
Sig.
.973
.739
.596
.439
.820
.522
.759
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Mothers Education.

Findings: The contrasts among different education levels of respondents mother did
resilience characteristics were not correlated with Mothers Education.
Major. The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for Major.
Table 49.
One-way ANOVA for Major (GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
4048.705
13499.245
17547.950
2534.405
17257.545
19791.950
3513.363
14434.187
17947.550
1779.783
11140.017
12919.800
2301.970
10449.230
12751.200
df
Mean Square F
Sig.
10
69
79
10
69
79
10
69
79
10
69
79
10
69
79
404.871
195.641
2.069
.039
253.441
250.109
1.013
.441
351.336
209.191
1.679
.103
177.978
161.450
1.102
.373
230.197
151.438
1.520
.151
91
Table 49 continued.
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
2075.449
14714.101
16789.550
987.437
8856.513
9843.950
df
Mean Square F
Sig.
10
69
79
10
69
79
207.545
213.248
.973
.474
98.744
128.355
.769
.657

Findings: One-way ANOVA revealed that Positive: The world was significantly
correlated with Major.
Summary. The following table summarizes the significant relationship among
resilience characteristics and background factors.
Table 50.
Summary of Significant Relationship Among Resilience Characteristics and Background
Factors (GSU).
Positive:
The world
Age
International
Experience
Work
experience
TOEFL
Length of
stay at
current Univ.
Length of
stay in U.S.
Gender
Relevance of
Study
Community
of Origin
Country of
Origin
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Fathers
education
Mothers
education
Major
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Flexible:
Thoughts
X
X
X
X
X
92
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive
GSU data showed that resilience characteristics were not correlated with Age,
Previous International Experience, Previous Professional Work Experience, Length of
Stay, Community of Origin, Country of Origin, and Mothers Education. However,
certain resilience characteristics were correlated with TOEFL scores, Gender, Perceived
Relevance of Study, Marital Status, Sources of Support, Fathers Education, and Major.
FSU and GSU Data
From the FSU and GSU data, correlation studies were carried out for interval
variables, t-tests for dichotomous variables, and One-way ANOVA and Tukey analyses
were carried out for categorical variables to analyze the relationships among resilience
characteristics and background factors.
for interval variables.
Table 51.
Correlations for Interval Variables (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM ESTEEM
FOCUS COGFLEX
Age
Pearson
.078
.071 .165**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.188
.228
.005
N
289
289
289
Foreign
Pearson
.046
.050
.009
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.439
.400
.879
N
289
289
289
Work
Pearson
.067
.086 .171**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.259
.145
.004
N
289
289
289
TOEFL
Pearson
.039
.038
.027
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.509
.516
.650
N
289
289
289
TimeC
Pearson
.066
.063
.091
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.265
.288
.122
N
289
289
289
TimeU
Pearson
.055
.074
.084
SA
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.350
.212
.153
N
289
289
289
.013

E
V
.013 .140*
-.010
.821
289
.034
.830
289
.032
.017
289
.081
.862
289
.024
.560
289
.031
.589
289
.045
.170
289
.122*
.687
289
.038
.601
289
.140*
.445
289
-.007
.038
289
.035
.515
289
.138*
.017
289
-.006
.904
289
.033
.559
289
.104
.019
289
.004
.925
289
.001
.572
289
.066
.077
289
.077
.942
289
-.045
.984
289
.267
289
.191
289
.441
289
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Age.

93
Findings: Focused and Organized were significantly correlated with Age.

Experience.
International Experience.
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Previous Work
Experience.
Findings: Focused and Organized were significantly correlated with Previous work
experience.
Findings: Flexible: Thoughts and Proactive were significantly correlated with
TOEFL scores.
Findings: Resilience Characteristics were not significantly correlated with Time at
current university and time in US. Hence resilience characteristics were not correlated
with Length of Stay.
T-Test was carried out for dichotomous variablesGender, Perceived Relevance of
Study and campuses.
Table 52.
Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU and GSU)
OPTIMIS
Equal
M variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
ESTEEM
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
2.323
.129
-.054
286
.957
-.0883
1.63641
-.054
277.239
.957
-.0883
1.64108
.135
286
.893
.2261
1.67269
.135
283.679
.893
.2261
1.67440
.041
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.840
94

Table 52 continued.
FOCUS
COGFLE
X
SOCIAL
ORGANIZ
E
PROACTI
V
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.484
.487
.500
286
.499
281.573
.618
.8341
1.67044
1.130
286
.260
1.6235
1.43704
1.131
285.999
.259
1.6235
1.43584
-1.830
286
.068
-2.7237
1.48843
-1.828
283.568
.069
-2.7237
1.49001
-1.664
286
.097
-2.6387
1.58615
-1.665
285.972
.097
-2.6387
1.58444
-.224
286
.823
-.3031
1.35595
-.224
285.482
.823
-.3031
1.35357
.167
.106
.776
1.459
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.683
.745
.379
.228

.617
.8341 1.66752

Findings: The contrast among male and female students did not differ significant in
the mean scores for any resilience characteristics. Hence, resilience characteristics were
not correlated with Gender.
95
Table 53.
Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU and GSU).
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
F
OPTIMIS
M
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLE
X
SOCIAL
ORGANIZ
E
PROACTI
V
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
2.187
.461
.391
1.600
2.472
.116
.358
t-test for
Equality of
Means
Sig.
df
.140
1.655
285
.099
5.5746
3.36833
1.291 18.310
.213
5.5746
4.31923
2.485
285
.014
8.5031
3.42157
1.979 18.376
.063
8.5031
4.29617
3.213
285
.001
10.8738
3.38465
2.711 18.576
.014
10.8738
4.01092
285
.689
1.1962
2.98184
.474 20.478
.641
1.1962
2.52506
285
.188
4.0715
3.08539
1.756 21.650
.093
4.0715
2.31873
1.651
285
.100
5.4135
3.27893
1.648 19.334
.116
5.4135
3.28563
1.178
285
.240
3.2957
2.79746
1.188 19.390
.249
3.2957
2.77524
.498
.532
.207
.401
.117
1.320
.734
.550
96


Study.
Findings: The contrast among students who thought that their study was relevant to
their future study versus those who thought that their study was not relevant to their
future study was statistically significant at the .05 level, with the first group having a
higher mean in Positive: Yourself.
The contrast among students who thought that their study was relevant to their future
study versus those who thought that their study was not relevant to their future study was
statistically significant at the .05 level, with the first group having a higher mean in
Focused.
Campus. The following table reports the T-test results for different campuses.
Table 54.
Independent Samples Test for Campus (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMIS
M
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
ESTEEM
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
FOCUS
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
COGFLE
Equal
X
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.738
.391
1.283
287
.201
2.2902
1.78535
1.233 144.66
9
.220
2.2902
1.85716
287
.930
.1608
1.82951
.082 137.54
1
.934
.1608
1.95204
.106
287
.916
.1931
1.82484
.102 145.38
2
.919
.1931
1.89368
.125
287
.901
.1971
1.57726
.122 150.50
9
.903
.1971
1.60977
2.572
1.643
.714
t-test for
Equality
of Means
.110
.088
.201
.399
97

Table 54 continued.
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.023
.879
.011
287
SOCIAL
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
ORGANIZ
Equal
E
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
PROACTI
Equal
V
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
t-test for
Equality
of Means
.991
.0176 1.63723
.011 159.79
6
.982
.772
.322
.991
.0176
1.62555
287
.344
-1.6539
1.74507
-.912 145.07
8
.363
-1.6539
1.81275
287
.756
.4608
1.48272
.320 167.79
4
.750
.4608
1.44075
-.948
.380
.311
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Campus.

Findings: The contrast among FSU students and GSU students did not differ
significantly in the mean scores of any resilience characteristics. Hence, resilience
characteristics were not correlated with campuses.
ANOVA test was carried for categorical variables.
Table 55.
One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
183.673
df Mean Square
2
91.837
54893.497
284
193.287
55077.171
93.418
286
2
46.709
57417.209
284
202.173
57510.627
286
98
Sig.
.475
.622
.231
.794
Table 55 continued.
FOCUS
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Sum of
Squares
296.825
df Mean Square
2
148.412
56780.611
284
199.932
57077.436
2.080
286
2
1.040
42773.989
284
150.613
42776.070
154.204
286
2
77.102
45898.374
284
161.614
46052.578
835.759
286
2
417.880
51354.067
284
180.824
52189.826
105.317
286
2
52.658
37706.432
284
132.769
37811.749
286
Sig.
.742
.477
.007
.993
.477
.621
2.311
.101
.397
.673
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Community of Origin (big

cities, small towns, and villages)
Findings: The contrasts for students from different places did not differ significantly
characteristics were not correlated with Community of Origin.
Country of Origin
The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for Country of Origin.
Table 56.
One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
3061.361
df Mean Square
5
612.272
51366.838
275
186.789
54428.199
280
99
Sig.
3.278
.007
Table 56 continued.
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
3257.377
df Mean Square
5
651.475
52643.784
275
191.432
55901.160
3219.208
280
5
643.842
52189.048
275
189.778
55408.256
3556.953
280
5
711.391
37734.185
275
137.215
41291.139
2748.443
280
5
549.689
42261.145
275
153.677
45009.587
1706.443
280
5
341.289
49787.443
275
181.045
51493.886
3729.108
280
5
745.822
33023.127
275
120.084
36752.235
280
Sig.
3.403
.005
3.393
.005
5.184
.000
3.577
.004
1.885
.097
6.211
.000

Findings: The contrasts for students from different countries differed significantly in
the mean scores of six of the resilience characteristics, except for Organized. Further,
Tukey analyses indicated the following results:
The contrast among African students and Asian students was significant at the .05
level, with Asian students having lower mean scores in Focused.
The contrast among African students and South American students was significant at
the .05 level, with African students having lower mean scores in Flexible: Thoughts.
The contrast among Asian students and South American students was significant at
the .05 level, with Asian students having lower mean scores in Flexible: Thoughts.
The contrast among Asian students and European students was significant at
the .05 level, with Asian students having lower mean scores in Flexible: Thoughts.
The contrast among Middle East students and South American students was
significant at the .05 level, with Middle East having lower mean scores in Flexible:
Thoughts.
100
the .05 level, with Asian students having lower mean scores in Flexible: Social.
The contrast among Asian students and European students was significant at
the .05 level, with Asian students having lower mean scores in Proactive.
the .05 level, with Asian students having lower mean scores in Proactive.
Compared with students from other parts of the world, Asian students tend to have
lower resilience scores.
Marital Status. The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for Marital
Status.
Table 57.
One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1336.089
53655.785
54991.874
546.391
56919.231
57465.622
1331.959
55685.163
57017.122
367.210
42261.913
42629.122
1724.178
44303.697
46027.874
558.535
51316.770
51875.304
1170.698
36622.015
37792.713
df Mean Square
4
281
285
4
281
285
4
281
285
4
281
285
4
281
285
4
281
285
4
281
285
Sig.
334.022
190.946
1.749
.139
136.598
202.560
.674
.610
332.990
198.168
1.680
.155
91.802
150.398
.610
.655
431.044
157.664
2.734
.029
139.634
182.622
.765
.549
292.675
130.327
2.246
.064
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Marital Status.

Findings: One-way ANOVA revealed that the contrasts for students with different
Marital Status differed significantly in the mean scores for Flexible: Social. Hence,
Flexible: Social was significantly correlated with Marital Status.
Sources of Support
The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for Sources of Support.
101
Table 58.
One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
789.696
df Mean Square
4
197.424
54412.241
282
192.951
55201.937
1919.111
286
4
479.778
55375.321
282
196.366
57294.432
2071.374
286
4
517.844
54694.563
282
193.952
56765.937
1128.873
286
4
282.218
41677.343
282
147.792
42806.216
414.297
286
4
103.574
45694.532
282
162.037
46108.829
766.673
286
4
191.668
51497.787
282
182.616
52264.460
1225.575
286
4
306.394
36603.540
282
129.800
37829.115
286
Sig.
1.023
.396
2.443
.047
2.670
.033
1.910
.109
.639
.635
1.050
.382
2.361
.054
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Source of Support.

Findings: One-way ANOVA revealed that the contrasts for students with different
sources of support differed significantly in the mean scores for Positive: Yourself and
Focused. Hence Positive: Yourself and Focused were significantly correlated with
Sources of Support. A run of the Turkey analyses indicated the following result.
The contrast among students with self and/or family support and students with home
government or agency support was significant at .05 level, with the first group having
lower mean scores in Focused.
102
Parents Education. The following two tables report the one-way ANOVA results for
Parents Education.
Table 59.
One-way ANOVA for Father's Education (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
363.464
54301.596
54665.060
595.689
55879.273
56474.961
838.561
55196.075
56034.636
306.830
42130.894
42437.724
217.648
44827.871
45045.519
488.887
51036.187
51525.074
177.203
37570.232
37747.435
df Mean Square
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
Sig.
72.693
196.035
.371
.868
119.138
201.730
.591
.707
167.712
199.264
.842
.521
61.366
152.097
.403
.846
43.530
161.833
.269
.930
97.777
184.246
.531
.753
35.441
135.633
.261
.934
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Fathers Education.

Findings: Resilience characteristics were not significantly correlated with Fathers
Education.
Table 60.
One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
918.065
df Mean Square
5
183.613
54051.184
279
193.732
54969.249
309.139
284
5
61.828
57134.124
279
204.782
57443.263
284
103
Sig.
.948
.450
.302
.911
Table 60 continued.
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
578.452
df Mean Square
5
115.690
56424.334
279
202.238
57002.786
919.073
284
5
183.815
41612.555
279
149.149
42531.628
631.977
284
5
126.395
45346.430
279
162.532
45978.407
1269.379
284
5
253.876
50602.796
279
181.372
51872.175
723.805
284
5
144.761
37037.108
279
132.749
37760.912
284
Sig.
.572
.721
1.232
.294
.778
.567
1.400
.224
1.090
.366
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics are correlated with Mothers Education.

Findings: The contrasts among different education levels of respondents mother did
resilience characteristics were not correlated with Mothers Education.
Major
The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for Major.
Table 61.
One-way ANOVA for Major (FSU and GSU).
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
5869.239
df Mean Square
11
533.567
48153.904
268
179.679
54023.143
4132.407
279
11
375.673
51568.436
268
192.420
55700.843
279
104
F
2.970
Sig.
.001
1.952
.033
Table 61 continued.
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
Sum of
Squares
2894.389
11
263.126
Within
Groups
52782.682
268
196.950
Total
55677.071
279
Among
Groups
2214.255
11
201.296
Within
Groups
38979.856
268
145.447
Total
41194.111
279
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
4285.920
11
389.629
40631.380
268
151.610
44917.300
279
2560.974
11
232.816
48804.798
268
182.107
51365.771
279
Among
Groups
1642.627
11
149.330
Within
Groups
35080.341
268
130.897
Total
36722.968
279
Among
Groups
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
df Mean Square
Sig.
1.336
.204
1.384
.180
2.570
.004
1.278
.237
1.141
.329

Findings: One-way ANOVA for majors revealed that the contrasts for students with
different majors differed significantly in the mean scores for Positive: The world,
Positive: Yourself, and Flexible: Social. Hence, Positive: The world, Positive: Yourself,
and Flexible: Social were significantly correlated with Major.
Summary. The following table summarizes the significant relationship among
resilience characteristics and background factors.
105
Table 62.
Summary of the Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Background
Factors (FSU and GSU).
Positive:
The world
Age
Previous
International
Experience
Previous
work
experience
TOEFL
Length of
stay at
current Univ.
Length of
stay at USA
Gender
Relevance of
Study
Campus
Community
of Origin
Country of
Origin
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Fathers
education
Mothers
education
Major
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive
X
X
Previous International Experience, Length of Stay at Current University and in US,
Gender, Campus, Community of Origin, and Parents Education. However, certain
resilience characteristics were correlated with Age, Previous Work Experience, TOEFL
scores, Perceived Relevance of Study, Marital Status, Sources of Support, and Major.
Country of Origin is correlated with six of the resilience characteristics.
Among resilience characteristics, Focused was correlated with the largest number of
background factors, followed by Positive: Yourself, and Flexible: Social.
Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Adjustment Problem Areas
In this section, correlation analyses were carried out to find relationships among
resilience characteristics and adjustment problems. The general hypotheses were: the
106
resilience characteristics are negatively correlated with the 11 problem areas as

measured by the modified MISPI.
FSU Data Analyses
The following table reports the correlation results among resilience characteristics
and adjustment problems
Table 63.
Correlations Among Resilience Characteristics and Adjustment Problem Areas (FSU).
OPTIMISM ESTEEM
AVGADM
Pearson -.225**
Correlation
Sig. (1.001
tailed)
N
207
AVGORIE Pearson -.191**
N Correlation
Sig. (1.003
tailed)
N
207
AVGACAD Pearson -.222**
E Correlation
Sig. (1.001
tailed)
N
207
AVGSOCI Pearson -.315**
A Correlation
Sig. (1.000
tailed)
N
207
AVGLIVIN Pearson -.175**
Correlation
Sig. (1.006
tailed)
N
207
AVGHEAL Pearson -.293**
T Correlation
Sig. (1.000
tailed)
N
207
AVGRELI Pearson -.202**
G Correlation
Sig. (1.002
tailed)
N
207
AVGENGL Pearson -.284**
I Correlation
Sig. (1.000
tailed)
N
207
-.213**
FOCUS COGFLEX
-.263**
.001
.000
207
207
-.126*
-.169**
.036
.007
-.270**
.000

E
V
-.185**
-.184**
-.176**
.004
.004
.006
207
207
-.115*
-.180**
207
-.024
207
-.066
.363
.174
.049
.005
207
207
207
207
-.210**
-.244**
-.305**
-.173**
.001
.000
.006
.011
.000
207
207
207
207
-.282**
-.253**
-.227**
-.230**
207
-.113
207
-.158*
.000
.052
.012
207
207
207
207
-.149*
-.163**
-.201**
-.191**
207
-.110
207
-.085
.003
.058
.111
207
207
207
207
-.199**
-.199**
-.225**
-.204**
207
-.048
207
-.100
.000
.000
.016
.009
.000
207
207
-.159*
-.235**
.000
.002
.002
.002
.001
.002
.245
.077
207
-.199**
207
-.116*
207
-.146*
207
-.105
207
-.051
207
-.085
.002
.048
.018
.066
.233
.113
207
207
207
207
207
207
-.283**
-.251**
-.253**
-.247**
-.166**
-.295**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.008
.000
207
207
207
207
207
207
107
Table 63 continued.
OPTIMISM ESTEEM
FOCUS COGFLEX
AVGACTI Pearson -.289**

-.269**
-.221**
-.185**
V Correlation
Sig. (1.000
.000
.001
.004
tailed)
N
207
207
207
207
AVGFINA Pearson -.115*
-.044
-.112 -.198**
N Correlation
Sig. (1.049
.263
.055
.002
tailed)
N
207
207
207
207
AVGPLAC Pearson -.216**
-.117*
-.214**
-.227**
E Correlation
Sig. (1.001
.047
.001
.000
tailed)
N
207
207
207
207

E
V
-.262**
-.067 -.207**
.000
.169
.001
207
-.100
207
-.010
207
-.064
.075
.444
.180
207
-.102
207
-.048
207
-.084
.071
.246
.114
207
207
207
Note: OPTIMISM refers to Positive: The World

Hypotheses: Positive: World is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment

problems.
Findings: Positive: The World was significantly negatively correlated with all of the
eleven problem areas.
Hypotheses: Positive: Yourself is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment
problems.
Findings: Positive: Yourself was significantly negatively correlated with Admission
and Selection, Orientation, Academic Record, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Health
Service, Religious Service, English Language, Student Activity, and Placement Service.
108
It, however, was not significantly correlated with Financial Aid. In general, Positive:
Yourself is strong negatively correlated with the majority of adjustment problem areas.
Hypotheses: Focused is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment problems.
Findings: Focused was strongly negatively correlated with Admission and Selection,
Orientation, Academic Record, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Health Service,
Religious Service, English Language, Student Activity and Placement Service. Focused
was not significantly negatively correlated with Financial Aid. In general, Focused is
strong negatively correlated with the majority of adjustment problem areas.
Hypotheses: Flexible: Thoughts is significantly negatively correlated with
adjustment problems.
Findings: Flexible: Thoughts was significantly negatively correlated with all of the
Hypotheses: Flexible: Social is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment
problems.
Findings: Flexible: Social was significantly negatively correlated with Admission
and Selection, Orientation, Academic Record, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Health
Service, English Language, and Student Activity. The three problems areas which
Flexible: Social was not significantly negatively correlated were Religious Service,
Financial Aid, and Placement Service. In general, Flexible: Social is strong negatively
correlated with the majority of adjustment problem areas.
Hypotheses: Organized is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment
problems.
Findings: Organized was significantly negatively correlated with Admission and
Selection, Academic record, and English Language. It was not significantly negatively
correlated with Orientation Service, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Health Service,
Religious Service, Student Activity, Financial Aid, and Placement Service.
Hypotheses: Proactive is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment
problems.
Findings: Proactive was significantly negatively correlated with Admission and
Selection, Academic Record, Social-Personal, English Language, and Student Activity. It
was not significantly negatively correlated with Orientation Service, Living and Dining,
Health Service, Religious Service, Financial Aid, and Placement Service.
The following table summarizes the significant relationships among resilience
characteristics and adjustment problem areas.
Table 64.
Summary of Significant Pearson Correlations Among Resilience Characteristics and
Adjustment Problems (FSU).
Positive: The
world
Admission
_
and
Selection
Orientation
_
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
109
Flexible:
Social
_
Organized
_
Proactive
_
Table 64 continued.
Positive: The
world
Academic
_
Record
Social_
Personal
Living and
_
Dining
Health
_
Service
Religion
_
Service
English
_
Language
Student
_
Activity
Financial
_
Aid
Placement
_
Service
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
Organized
_
Proactive
_
_
_
_
_
_
Note: _ indicating negative relationships
The above analyses showed that Positive: The World, Flexible: Thinking were
significantly negatively correlated with all of the adjustment areas. Focused, Positive:
Yourself, and Flexible: Social were significantly negatively correlated with most of
adjustment problem areas. Proactive was not significantly negatively correlated with the
majority of adjustment problems, and Organized was least significantly negatively
correlated with adjustment problem areas.
GSU Data Analyses
The following table reports the correlation results among resilience characteristics
and adjustment problem areas.
Table 65.
Correlations Among Resilience Characteristics and Adjustment Problem areas (GSU).
AVGADM
OPTIMI ESTEEM FOCUS

SM
Pearson Correlation -.204* -.121
-.292**
COGFLE SOCIA ORGANI PROACTI

X
L
ZE
V
-.250*
-.191* -.050
-.107
Sig. (1-tailed)
.033
.140
.004
.012
.043
.327
.169
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGORIEN Pearson Correlation -.177 .027
-.101
-.138
-.146 .049
-.193*
Sig. (1-tailed)
.056
.406
.182
.109
.096
.332
.042
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGACADE Pearson Correlation -.063 -.135
-.204*
-.116
-.164 .009
-.058
Sig. (1-tailed)
.288
.112
.033
.149
.070
.466
.303
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
110
Table 65 continued.
OPTIMISM ESTEEM FOCU COGFLEX SOCIAL ORGANIZ PROACTI
E
V
S
AVGSOCI
Pearson -.300**
-.300** -.312** -.224*
-.304**
-.123
-.025
A
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.003
.003 .002
.021
.003
.136
.410
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGLIVIN
Pearson -.238*
-.147 -.297** -.288**
-.153
-.158
-.178
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.015
.094 .003
.004
.086
.078
.054
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGHEAL
Pearson -.250*
-.153 -.175
-.098
-.096
-.003
.005
T
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.012
.084 .058
.191
.197
.488
.483
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGRELI
Pearson
-.181 -.313** -.332**
-.166
-.151
-.170
-.110
G
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.052
.002 .001
.068
.087
.064
.163
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGENGL
Pearson -.215*
-.185*
-.178
-.138
-.126
-.002
-.076
I
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.026
.048 .055
.108
.130
.493
.247
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGACTI
Pearson -.246*
-.244*
-.239*
-.345**
-.147
-.164
V
.288**
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.013
.014 .004
.015
.001
.093
.071
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGFINA
Pearson
-.170
-.118 -.185*
-.231*
.084
-.049
-.121
N
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.063
.146 .048
.018
.226
.330
.139
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
AVGPLAC
Pearson -.248*
-.309** -.356** -.308**
-.101
-.109
-.033
E
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.012
.002 .001
.002
.183
.165
.385
N
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
From the above table, the following hypotheses were tested and findings were drawn.
problems.
Findings: Positive: The world was significantly negatively correlated with Admission
and Selection, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Health Service, English, Student
Activity, and Placement Service. It was not significantly correlated with Orientation,
Academic Record, Religious Service, and Financial Aid.
problems.
Findings: Positive: Yourself was significantly negatively correlated with Social
Personal, Religious Service, English Language, Student Activity, and Placement Service.
It was not significantly correlated with Admission and Selection, Orientation, Academic
Record, Living and Dining, Health Service, and Financial Aid.
111
Hypotheses: Focused is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment problems.

Findings: Focused was significantly negatively correlated with Admission and
Selection, Academic Record, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Religious Service,
Student Activity, Financial Aid, and Placement Service. It was not significantly
negatively correlated with Orientation, Academic Record, and Health problem areas.
Findings: Flexible: Thoughts was significantly negatively correlated with Admission
and Selection, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, Student Activity, Financial Aid, and
Placement Service. It was not significantly negatively correlated with Orientation,
Academic Records, Heath Service, Religious Service, and English Language.
problems.
Findings: Flexible: Social was significantly negatively correlated with Admission
and Selection, Social-Personal, and Student Activity. It was not significantly negatively
correlated with Orientation, Academic Records, Living and Dining, Health Service,
Religious Service, English Language, Financial Aid, and Placement Service.
problems.
Findings: Organized was significantly negatively correlated with none of the eleven
problems areas.
problems.
Findings: Proactive was significantly negatively correlated with only Orientation.
The following table summarizes the significant relationship among resilience
characteristics and adjustment problems from GSU respondents.
Table 66.
Adjustment Problems (GSU).
Positive: The
world
Admission
_
and
Selection
Orientation
Academic
Record
SocialPersonal
Living and
Dining
Health
Service
Religion
Service
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
Proactive
_
_
Organized
_
_
112
Table 66 continued.
Positive: The
world
Positive:
Yourself
English
Language
Student
Activity
Financial
Aid
Placement
Service
Focused
Flexible:
Thinking
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive
The above table shows that Focused and Positive: The World, and Flexible: Thoughts
were significantly negatively correlated with the majority of adjustment problem areas.
Positive: Yourself, Flexible: Social, and Proactive were significantly correlated with
some of the adjustment problem area. Organized was not significantly negatively
correlated with any adjustment problem areas.
Although FSU data showed stronger relationships among resilience characteristics
and adjustment than GSU data, the two data sets yielded the same findings that Flexible:
Thoughts, Focused, and Positive: The World were significantly negatively correlated
with the majority of adjustment problem areas. Proactive was not significantly negatively
correlated with the majority of the adjustment problem areas, and Organized had the least
strong correlation with adjustment. The two sets of data differed on the significant
relationships among adjustment problem areas and the following resilience
characteristics: Positive: Yourself and Flexible: Social. The difference may be caused by
the different sizes of two data sets. With a larger number of respondents, results from
GSU data may bear more resemblance to those of FSU data. Because of the difference in
the analytical results from the two data sets, it is useful to see the relationships among
resilience characteristics and adjustment problems by using the combined data from the
two universities.
FSU and GSU Data Analyses

The following table reports correlation results among resilience characteristics and
adjustment problem areas.
113
Table 67.
Correlations Among Resilience Characteristics and Adjustment Problem Areas (FSU and
GSU).
OPTIMIS ESTEE FOCUS COGFLE
M
M
X
AVGADM
Pearson -.221** -.180** -.272** -.263**
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.001
.000
.000
N
289
289
289
289
AVGORIE
Pearson -.193**
-.071 -.146**
-.122*
N
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.114
.007
.019
N
289
289
289
289
AVGACA
Pearson -.170** -.187** -.232** -.251**
DE
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.002
.001
.000
.000
N
289
289
289
289
AVGSOCI
Pearson -.314** -.286** -.271** -.226**
A
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
289
289
289
289
AVGLIVIN
Pearson -.210** -.142** -.205** -.225**
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.008
.000
.000
N
289
289
289
289
AVGHEAL
Pearson -.282** -.183** -.191** -.187**
T
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.001
.001
.001
N
289
289
289
289
AVGRELI
Pearson -.193** -.229** -.172** -.150**
G
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.002
.005
N
289
289
289
289
AVGENG
Pearson -.250** -.251** -.228** -.219**
LI
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
289
289
289
289
AVGACTI
Pearson -.276** -.260** -.242** -.202**
V
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
N
289
289
289
289
AVGFINA
Pearson -.142**
-.068 -.134*
-.207**
N
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.008
.125
.011
.000
N
289
289
289
289
AVGPLAC
Pearson -.230** -.183** -.260** -.253**
E
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.001
.000
.000
N
289
289
289
289
114
SOCIAL ORGANI PROAC

ZE
TIV
-.186**
-.136* -.156**
.001
289
-.167**
.011
.004
289
289
.006 -.104*
.002
.459
.039
289
289
289
-.171**
-.112* -.188**
.002
.029
.001
289
289
289
-.251**
-.111* -.120*
.000
.029
.020
289
289
289
-.171**
-.110* -.114*
.002
289
-.172**
.031
289
-.031
.026
289
-.071
.002
289
-.116*
.298
289
-.083
.114
289
-.090
.024
.079
.063
289
289
289
-.214**
-.126* -.236**
.000
289
-.286**
.016
.000
289
289
-.091 -.195**
.000
289
-.043
.061
289
-.016
.000
289
-.082
.234
289
-.101*
.396
289
-.065
.083
289
-.069
.043
289
.134
289
.121
289

problem areas.
Finding: Positive: The world was significantly negatively correlated with all eleven
problem areas.
Findings: Except for Orientation and Financial Aid problems areas, Positive:
Yourself was significantly negatively correlated with all the other adjustment problem
areas. In general, Positive: Yourself was significantly negatively correlated with nine out
of eleven adjustment problem areas.
Hypotheses: Focused is significantly negatively correlated with adjustment problem
areas.
Findings: Focused was significantly negatively correlated with all the adjustment
problem areas.
Findings: Flexible: Thoughts was significantly negatively correlated with all the
problems.
Findings: Except for Financial Aid, Flexible: Social was significantly negatively
correlated with all of other ten adjustment problem areas.
problem areas.
Findings: Organized was only significantly negatively correlated with Admission and
Selection, Academic Record, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, and English Language.
problems.
Findings: Proactive was significantly negatively correlated with Admission and
Selection, Orientation, Academic Record, Social-Personal, Living and Dining, English
Language, and Student Activity.
The following table summarizes the significant relationships among resilience
characteristics and background factors for FSU and GSU responses.
Table 68.
Adjustment Problems (FSU and GSU).
Positive: The
world
Admission
_
and
Selection
Orientation
_
Academic
Record
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
115
Organized
_
Proactive
_
_
_
Table 68 continued.
Positive: The
world
Social_
Personal
Living and
_
Dining
Health
_
Service
Religion
_
Service
English
_
Language
Student
_
Activity
Financial
_
Aid
Placement
_
Service
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
Organized
Proactive
_
_
Note: _ indicating a negative relationships.
The above table shows that the following five resilience characteristics were
significantly negatively correlated with most of the adjustment problem areas: Focused,
Flexible: Thoughts, Positive: The World, Flexible: Social, and Positive: Yourself.
Proactive was also significantly negatively correlated with the majority of adjustment
problem areas. Organized was least significantly correlated with adjustment problem
areas.
From the above analyses, it can be seen that the most resilience characteristics were
significantly negatively correlated with adjustment problem areas. The hypotheses are
accepted.
Relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors
In this section various statistical analyses were carried out to explore the
relationships among adjustment problem areas and background factors. Analyses were
carried out under three groups. Under group one, analyses were carried out by using FSU
data. Under group two, analyses were carried out by using GSU data. Under group three,
analyses were carried out by using combined FSU and GSU data.
On the bases of the statistical analyses of this section, background factors which
were correlated with adjustment problem areas were further studied in a later section on
multiple regression for future prediction.
FSU Data Analyses
Correlation studies were carried out for interval variables, t-tests for dichotomous
variables, and One-way ANOVA and Tukey analyses for categorical variables to
determine the relationships among resilience characteristics and background factors. The
general hypotheses is that adjustment problems vary by background factors.
116
Correlations for Interval Variables. Correlations were carried out for interval
variables.
Table 69.
Correlations Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors (FSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACAD
E
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLAC
E
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Age
-.077
Foreign
.044
Work
-.071
TOEFL
.069
Timec
-.107
TimeUS
-.026
.272
207
.032
.529
207
.142*
.312
207
.034
.321
207
-.034
.124
207
-.069
.708
207
.045
.651
207
.099
.041
207
.014
.626
207
.111
.629
207
-.085
.320
207
-.132
.517
207
-.018
.157
207
-.118
.841
207
.041
.111
207
-.063
.224
207
-.003
.059
207
-.055
.797
207
.017
.091
207
-.133
.555
207
.073
.364
207
-.044
.966
207
.010
.433
207
-.122
.809
207
-.093
.057
207
-.026
.297
207
.115
.528
207
.022
.891
207
.083
.081
207
-.078
.184
207
-.042
.711
207
.022
.099
207
.066
.753
207
.066
.237
207
.032
.262
207
-.029
.549
207
.043
.752
207
.126
.345
207
-.062
.346
207
.114
.648
207
-.229**
.683
207
-.131
.539
207
-.140*
.069
207
.005
.377
207
.109
.101
207
.043
.001
207
-.062
.061
207
-.051
.044
207
-.028
.942
207
-.019
.117
207
.027
.537
207
-.012
.375
207
-.006
.470
207
-.070
.685
207
-.006
.785
207
-.082
.699
207
.053
.865
207
-.104
.936
207
.068
.314
207
-.050
.929
207
.058
.241
207
.452
207
.135
207
.331
207
.476
207
.411
207
117
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed).

Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Age.

Findings: Adjustment problem areas were not correlated to Age.
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Previous International
Experience.
Findings: Orientation Service was correlated to Previous International Experience,
the longer the stay, the more the problems in the area.
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Previous Professional
Work Experience.
Findings: Adjustment problems were not correlated to Previous Work Experience.
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with TOEFL scores.
Findings: Adjustment problem areas were correlated with TOEFL scores, the higher
the scores, the less the problems in English language.
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Length of Stay.
Findings: Adjustment problem areas were not correlated with Length of Stay at
Current University. However, English language was significantly negatively correlated
with the Length of Stay in US, the longer the stay, the less the problems in the area.
T-tests were carried out for the following dichotomous variables.
Table 70.
Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU).
Levenes
t-test for
Test for
Equality
Equality of
of Means
Variances
F Sig.
T
AVGADM Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
.025 .875
-1.356
df
204
-1.353 189.90
1
118

.177 -.04808 .035473
.178
-.04808
.035549
Table 70 continued.
Levenes
t-test for
Test for
Equality
Equality of
of Means
Variances
F Sig.
T
AVGORIE Equal variances
N
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGACA Equal variances
DE
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGSOCI Equal variances
A
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGLIVIN Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGHEAL Equal variances
T
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGRELI Equal variances
G
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGENG Equal variances
LI
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGACTI Equal variances
V
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGFINA Equal variances
N
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGPLAC Equal variances
E
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
.024 .877
-.420
df
204

.675 -.01445 .034392
.093 .760
-.417 186.32
4
-1.362
204
.677
-.01445
.034625
.175
-.04764
.034975
.176
-.04764
.035115
1.343 .248
-1.357 188.48
7
-1.713
204
.088
-.06798
.039674
.091
-.06798
.040004
2.527 .113
-1.699 185.05
3
-1.387
204
.167
-.04567
.032925
.159
-.04567
.032290
1.156 .284
-1.414 201.96
7
-3.775
204
.000
-.15440
.040900
.000
-.15440
.041448
.203 .652
-3.725 180.75
8
-.345
204
.730
-.01391
.040268
.731
-.01391
.040426
.493 .484
-.344 188.55
1
.289
204
.773
.01542
.053321
.774
.01542
.053596
.939 .334
.288 187.59
6
.426
204
.670
.01602
.037562
.666
.01602
.037034
.475 .492
.433 199.88
7
-1.539
204
.125
-.09147
.059435
.127
-.09147
.059707
1.319 .252
-1.532 188.04
2
-1.770
204
.078
-.08855
.050028
-1.775 193.48
4
.077
-.08855
.049884
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Gender.

Findings: Adjustment problem areas were significantly correlated with gender, with
female students having more problems in the Health Service problem area.
119
Table 71.
Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIE
N
AVGACA
DE
AVGSOCI
A
AVGLIVIN
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.289
.591
-.204
203
.839
-.01605
.078671
-.211
11.261
.836
-.01605
.075987
-.529
203
.597
-.04007
.075718
-.413
10.660
.688
-.04007
.097068
-1.089
203
.278
-.08400
.077157
-.940
10.832
.368
-.08400
.089401
-1.068
203
.287
-.09384
.087824
-.916
10.820
.379
-.09384
.102390
-.247
203
.805
-.01804
.073018
-.301
11.841
.768
-.01804
.059879
.507
1.699
.327
1.117
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.477
.194
.568
.292
120

Table 71 continued.
AVGHEAL
Equal
T variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGRELI
Equal
G variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGENG
Equal
LI variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGACTI
Equal
V variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGFINA
Equal
N variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGPLAC
Equal
E variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
1.694
.195
.129
203
.177
12.416
.863
.01207
.068244
.694
203
.489
.06163
.088820
.973
12.566
.349
.06163
.063372
-1.355
203
.177
-.15893
.117315
-1.280
11.023
.227
-.15893
.124155
-2.071
203
.040
-.16974
.081972
-1.594
10.641
.140
-.16974
.106451
.321
203
.749
.04204
.130982
.411
12.068
.688
.04204
.102254
-.214
203
.831
-.02364
.110535
-.244
11.579
.811
-.02364
.096830
.870
.056
2.100
1.074
.446
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.352
.814
.149
.301
.505

.897
.01207 .093308
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Perceived Relevance of

Study.
121
Findings: Adjustment problem areas were correlated with Perceived Relevance of

Study, with students who thought that their study was irrelevant to their future goals
suffering more problems in Student Activity problem area.
Table 72.
One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.190
12.891
13.082
.112
12.020
12.132
.028
12.626
12.654
.135
16.256
16.391
.019
11.251
11.270
.003
18.397
18.400
.419
16.291
16.710
.361
28.986
29.346
.162
14.338
14.499
.419
35.854
36.273
.329
25.495
25.824
df Mean Square
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
2
202
204
Sig.
.095
.064
1.490
.228
.056
.060
.942
.392
.014
.063
.220
.803
.067
.080
.837
.435
.010
.056
.175
.840
.001
.091
.016
.984
.209
.081
2.597
.077
.180
.143
1.257
.287
.081
.071
1.139
.322
.210
.177
1.181
.309
.165
.126
1.305
.273
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Community of Origin.

Findings: Adjustment problems were not significantly correlated with Community of
Origin.
122
Status.
Table 73.
One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.391
12.674
13.065
.276
11.848
12.124
.381
12.268
12.648
.291
16.091
16.382
.269
10.985
11.254
.730
17.664
18.394
.634
16.076
16.710
2.319
26.925
29.244
.412
14.057
14.469
.998
35.268
36.266
.509
25.312
25.821
df Mean Square
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
4
199
203
Sig.
.098
.064
1.533
.194
.069
.060
1.158
.331
.095
.062
1.544
.191
.073
.081
.900
.465
.067
.055
1.216
.305
.183
.089
2.056
.088
.159
.081
1.963
.102
.580
.135
4.285
.002
.103
.071
1.458
.216
.249
.177
1.408
.233
.127
.127
1.001
.408
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Marital Status.

Findings: English language problem area was correlated with Marital Status. A run
of Tukey analyses indicated that: The contrast among single students and married
students accompanied by their spouses was significant at .05 level, with married student
accompanied by spouses having more problems in English.
Sources of Support.
123
Table 74.
One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU).
AVGADM
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.532
12.593
13.125
AVGORIEN
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.171
12.011
12.182
4
200
204
.043
.060
.713
.584
AVGACADE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.400
12.305
12.705
4
200
204
.100
.062
1.627
.169
AVGSOCIA
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.537
15.965
16.502
4
200
204
.134
.080
1.683
.155
AVGLIVIN
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.075
11.223
11.298
.323
18.170
18.493
.249
16.329
16.578
2.159
27.024
29.184
.628
13.910
14.538
4
200
204
4
200
204
4
200
204
4
200
204
4
200
204
.019
.056
.336
.854
.081
.091
.889
.471
.062
.082
.763
.550
.540
.135
3.995
.004
.157
.070
2.259
.064
AVGFINAN
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
1.056
35.445
36.501
4
200
204
.264
.177
1.490
.207
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.678
25.298
25.976
4
200
204
.169
.126
1.339
.257
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
df Mean Square
4
200
204
Sig.
.133
.063
2.111
.081
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Sources of Support.

Findings: English Language problem area was correlated with Sources of Support.
Mothers Education. The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for
Mothers Education.
124
Table 75.
One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU).
AVGADM
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.115
12.950
13.065
AVGORIEN
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.312
11.812
12.124
5
198
203
.062
.060
1.046
.392
AVGACADE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.187
12.461
12.648
5
198
203
.037
.063
.595
.704
AVGSOCIA
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.258
16.124
16.382
5
198
203
.052
.081
.633
.674
AVGLIVIN
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.416
10.838
11.254
.228
18.166
18.394
.342
16.368
16.710
.783
28.461
29.244
.297
14.173
14.469
.758
35.508
36.266
.270
25.551
25.821
5
198
203
5
198
203
5
198
203
5
198
203
5
198
203
5
198
203
5
198
203
.083
.055
1.521
.185
.046
.092
.497
.778
.068
.083
.828
.531
.157
.144
1.090
.367
.059
.072
.830
.530
.152
.179
.845
.519
.054
.129
.418
.836
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
df Mean Square
5
198
203
Sig.
.023
.065
.350
.882
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Mothers Education.

Findings: Adjustment problems were not significantly correlated with Mothers
Education.
Fathers Education. The following table reports the one-way ANOVA results for
Fathers Education.
125
Table 76.
One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education (FSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.452
12.139
12.592
.100
11.606
11.706
.246
11.815
12.062
.766
15.006
15.772
.679
10.542
11.221
.184
18.022
18.206
.419
16.273
16.691
.679
27.255
27.934
.207
14.095
14.302
2.505
33.476
35.981
.879
24.478
25.357
df Mean Square
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
5
196
201
Sig.
.090
.062
1.461
.204
.020
.059
.339
.889
.049
.060
.817
.539
.153
.077
2.001
.080
.136
.054
2.525
.031
.037
.092
.400
.848
.084
.083
1.009
.414
.136
.139
.977
.433
.041
.072
.576
.719
.501
.171
2.933
.014
.176
.125
1.407
.223
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Fathers Education.

Findings: Living and Dining, and Financial Aid problem areas were correlated with
fathers education in. A run of Tukey analyses indicated the following results:
The contrast group among Fathers Education with some college and Fathers
Education at the masters level was significant at the .05 level, with the second group
having more problems in Living and Dining.
The contrast group among Fathers Education at the masters level and Fathers
Education with some college was significant at the .05 level, with the first group having
more problems in Financial Aid problem area.
The contrast group among Fathers Education at the the masters level and Fathers
Education at Ph.D. level was significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more
problems in Financial Aid problem area.
126
Table 77.
One-way ANOVA for Major (FSU).
AVGADM
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.765
11.353
12.117
AVGORIEN
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
.739
10.911
11.650
1.259
10.988
12.246
1.175
14.369
15.544
.342
10.586
10.928
1.313
16.763
18.075
1.004
15.418
16.422
2.391
25.922
28.313
.941
12.744
13.685
2.553
31.977
34.530
1.889
22.525
24.414
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
df Mean Square
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
10
189
199
Sig.
.076
.060
1.273
.248
.074
.058
1.281
.244
.126
.058
2.165
.022
.117
.076
1.545
.126
.034
.056
.611
.803
.131
.089
1.480
.149
.100
.082
1.231
.273
.239
.137
1.743
.074
.094
.067
1.396
.185
.255
.169
1.509
.139
.189
.119
1.585
.114
Hypotheses: Adjustment problems are correlated with Major.

Findings: The academic Record problem area was correlated with Major.
Country of Origin.
127
Table 78.
One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.146
11.622
11.768
.543
10.869
11.412
.932
10.748
11.680
.654
14.444
15.097
.307
10.621
10.928
.395
17.713
18.108
.345
16.077
16.422
3.057
24.585
27.642
1.300
12.388
13.687
1.282
33.406
34.688
.182
24.084
24.266
df Mean Square
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
5
194
199
Sig.
.029
.060
.487
.785
.109
.056
1.940
.089
.186
.055
3.363
.006
.131
.074
1.755
.124
.061
.055
1.122
.350
.079
.091
.864
.506
.069
.083
.832
.528
.611
.127
4.824
.000
.260
.064
4.070
.002
.256
.172
1.489
.195
.036
.124
.294
.916
Hypotheses: Adjustment problem areas are correlated with Country of Origin.

Findings: Academic Records, and English Language, and Student Activity problem
areas were correlated with Country of Origin. A run of the Tukey analyses revealed the
following results:
The contrast between the African students and European students was significant at
the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Academic Record problem
area.
The contrast between the African students and South American students was
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in the Academic
Record problem area.
The contrast between the Asian students and European students was significant at
128
the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in English Language problem
area.
The contrast between the Middle East students and European students was significant
at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in English Language problem
area.
at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Student Activity problem
area.
The contrast between the Middle East students and the South American students was
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Student Activity
problem area.
Summary. The following table summarizes the significant relationships among
adjustment problems and background factors.
Table 79.
Summary of Significant Relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas and
Background Factors (FSU).
Adm
Age
Foreign
Work
TOEFL
TimeC
TimeUS
Gender
Relevance
Community
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Mothers
Education
Fathers
Education
Major
Country of
Origin
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
Fin
Pla
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The above table shows that adjustment problems areas were not correlated with Age,
Previous Work Experience, Length of Stay at Current University, Community of Origin,
and Mothers Education. Among adjustment problem areas, the English Language
problem area was correlated with the largest number of background factors, followed by
the Academic Record, and Student Activity problem areas.
129
GSU Data Analyses

variables, and one-way ANOVA and Tukey for categorical variables to analyze the
relationships among resilience characteristics and background factors. The general
hypotheses are that adjustment problems are correlated with background factors.
Correlations for Interval Variables. Correlations were carried out for interval
variables.
Table 80.
Correlations Among Adjustment Problems and Background Factors (GSU).
AVGADM
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
AVGORIEN
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
AVGACAD
Pearson
E Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
AVGSOCIA
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
AVGLIVIN
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
AVGHEALT
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
AVGRELIG
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
AVGENGLI
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Age
-.023
Foreign
-.115
Work
.008
TOEFL
-.112
TimeC
-.089
TimeUS)
-.072
.836
82
-.041
.305
82
-.035
.945
82
-.040
.316
82
-.084
.426
82
-.063
.520
82
-.009
.716
82
-.033
.757
82
-.075
.719
82
-.026
.452
82
.012
.575
82
-.012
.933
82
.009
.766
.502
.819
.912
.912
.938
82
.018
82
.084
82
-.066
82
.112
82
.018
82
-.087
.876
.455
.558
.317
.876
.438
82
-.094
82
.022
82
-.114
82
-.068
82
-.060
82
-.215
.399
.847
.307
.546
.591
.052
82
.189
82
.022
82
.101
82
-.204
82
.195
82
.135
.088
.845
.367
.067
.080
.227
82
.156
82
.203
82
.046
82
-.176
82
.073
82
.191
.162
.068
.679
.115
.514
.085
82
82
-.102
82
82
-.077
82
.058
.312**
82
.270*
-.394**
.004
.361
.014
.000
.495
.603
82
82
82
82
82
82
130
Table 80 continued.
Age
Foreign
Work
Pearson
.052
.037
.061
Correlation
Sig. (2.640
.743
.587
tailed)
N
82
82
82
AVGFINAN
Pearson
-.055
-.038
-.123
Correlation
Sig. (2.621
.735
.273
tailed)
N
82
82
82
AVGPLAC
Pearson
-.105
-.032
-.125
E Correlation
Sig. (2.350
.774
.262
tailed)
N
82
82
82
AVGACTIV
TOEFL
-.029
TimeC
-.107
TimeUS
-.052
.796
.339
.644
82
-.124
82
.118
82
.102
.269
.289
.363
82
-.101
82
.015
82
-.004
.366
.895
.972
82
82
82

Findings: The English language problem area was strongly correlated with Age, with
older students having more problems in the area.
Experience.
Findings: Adjustment problem areas were not correlated with Previous International
Experience.
Work Experience.
Findings: The English language problem area was significantly correlated with
Previous Professional Work Experience, the longer the working period, the more
problems in English.
Findings: Adjustment problem areas were correlated with TOEFL scores, the higher
the scores, the less the problems in the English language.
Current University. Also adjustment problem areas were not correlated with Length of
Stay in US.
T-tests were carried out for the following dichotomous independent variables.
131
Table 81.
Independent Samples Test for Gender (GSU).
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
F
AVGADM Equal variances

assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGORIE Equal variances
N
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
AVGACA Equal variances
DE
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
A
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
T
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
G
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
LI
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
V
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
N
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
E
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
.089
.008
1.529
.323
.019
3.042
1.176
.380
.429
.310
1.106
t-test for
Equality
of Means
Sig.
df
.767
-1.206
80
.231
-.07844
.065029
-1.219 65.541
.227
-.07844
.064371
-1.068
80
.289
-.06815
.063838
-1.077 65.333
.285
-.06815
.063257
-1.014
80
.314
-.05461
.053851
-1.111 78.939
.270
-.05461
.049151
-1.153
80
.252
-.07959
.069045
-1.142 61.616
.258
-.07959
.069688
80
.350
-.06509
.069236
-.921 59.409
.361
-.06509
.070663
80
.030
-.15073
.068380
-2.334 74.518
.022
-.15073
.064571
-1.464
80
.147
-.07943
.054241
-1.491 67.051
.141
-.07943
.053292
80
.654
.03445
.076611
.439 58.555
.663
.03445
.078533
80
.233
-.07835
.065164
-1.256 72.119
.213
-.07835
.062379
-2.007
80
.048
-.21356
.106399
-2.026 65.345
.047
-.21356
.105425
-1.718
80
.090
-.15792
.091928
-1.784 70.971
.079
-.15792
.088539
.931
.220
.572
.891
.085
.281
-.940
-2.204
.539
.515
.579
.296
.450
-1.202
132


Findings are as follows:
Health Service Problem area was correlated with Gender, with female students having
more problems in the area.
Financial Aid Problem area was correlated with Gender, with female students having
more problems in the area.
Table 82.
Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (GSU).
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
F
AVGADM
AVGORIE
N
AVGACA
DE
AVGSOCI
A
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEAL
T
AVGRELI
G
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
.751
.288
5.860
.143
1.611
.628
14.273
t-test
for
Equalit
y of
Means
Sig.
t
df
.389 -1.542
80
.127
-.17304
.112213
-1.233
6.673
.259
-.17304
.140289
-.937
80
.352
-.10397
.110960
-.666
6.501
.528
-.10397
.156025
.018 -2.323
80
.023
-.21143
.091030
-1.407
6.331
.206
-.21143
.150219
-.042
80
.967
-.00508
.120807
-.046
7.428
.965
-.00508
.111406
1.598
80
.114
.19003
.118928
2.300
8.997
.047
.19003
.082619
-.261
80
.795
-.03186
.122162
-.235
6.902
.821
-.03186
.135632
.000 -2.090
80
.040
-.19413
.092878
-1.177
6.271
.282
-.19413
.164899
.593
.706
.208
.431
133

Table 82 continued.
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
F
AVGENG
LI
AVGACTI
V
AVGFINA
N
AVGPLAC
E
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
4.709
.000
.034
.089
t-test
for
Equalit
y of
Means
Sig.
t
df
.033
-.815
80
-.489
6.323
.641
-.10801
.220877
-.845
80
.401
-.09593
.113594
-.891
7.332
.401
-.09593
.107699
.730
80
.468
.13766
.188605
.687
7.004
.514
.13766
.200450
-.722
80
.473
-.11683
.161917
-.824
7.628
.435
-.11683
.141755
.990
.855
.766

.418 -.10801 .132566

Study.
Findings: Adjustment problems were not correlated with Perceived Relevance of
Study.
the independent variable Community of Origin.
Table 83.
One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.127
df Mean Square
2
.064
6.514
79
.082
6.641
.020
81
2
.010
6.356
79
.080
6.375
81
134
Sig.
.773
.465
.123
.884
Table 83 continued.
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.065
df Mean Square
2
.033
4.465
79
.057
4.530
.025
81
2
.013
7.450
79
.094
7.475
.114
81
2
.057
7.361
79
.093
7.476
.256
81
2
.128
7.395
79
.094
7.650
.099
81
2
.050
4.561
79
.058
4.660
.019
81
2
.010
9.056
79
.115
9.076
.079
81
2
.040
6.589
79
.083
6.668
.162
81
2
.081
18.180
79
.230
18.341
.100
81
2
.050
13.415
79
.170
13.516
81
Sig.
.579
.563
.133
.876
.614
.544
1.365
.261
.858
.428
.085
.919
.474
.624
.351
.705
.296
.745

Findings: Adjustment problem areas were not correlated with Community of Origin.
135
Status.
Table 84.
One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.183
6.459
6.641
.152
6.224
6.375
.133
4.397
4.530
.279
7.196
7.475
.666
6.809
7.476
.181
7.469
7.650
.331
4.328
4.660
.632
8.444
9.076
.099
6.569
6.668
.806
17.535
18.341
.432
13.084
13.516
df Mean Square
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
Sig.
.046
.084
.544
.704
.038
.081
.469
.758
.033
.057
.584
.675
.070
.093
.746
.564
.167
.088
1.884
.122
.045
.097
.467
.759
.083
.056
1.473
.219
.158
.110
1.440
.229
.025
.085
.290
.883
.202
.228
.885
.477
.108
.170
.635
.639

Findings: Adjustment problem areas were significantly correlated with Marital
Status.
Sources of Support.
136
Table 85.
One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (GSU).
AVGADM
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGORIEN Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGACADE Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGSOCIA Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGLIVIN Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGHEALT Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGRELIG Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGENGLI
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGACTIV Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGFINAN Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.062
6.579
6.641
.069
6.307
6.375
.162
4.369
4.530
.237
7.238
7.475
.414
7.062
7.476
.211
7.439
7.650
.145
4.515
4.660
.462
8.614
9.076
.140
6.528
6.668
.653
17.688
18.341
.831
12.685
13.516
df Mean Square
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
4
77
81
Sig.
.016
.085
.182
.947
.017
.082
.210
.932
.040
.057
.712
.586
.059
.094
.632
.641
.103
.092
1.128
.350
.053
.097
.546
.703
.036
.059
.617
.652
.115
.112
1.032
.396
.035
.085
.414
.798
.163
.230
.710
.587
.208
.165
1.260
.293

Findings: Adjustment problem areas were not significantly correlated with Sources
of Support.
Mothers Education.
137
Table 86.
One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.198
6.443
6.641
.316
6.042
6.358
.238
4.276
4.514
.256
7.181
7.437
.170
7.299
7.470
.250
7.389
7.640
.369
4.178
4.548
1.096
7.978
9.074
.679
5.967
6.646
.517
17.442
17.959
.917
12.529
13.446
df Mean Square
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
Sig.
.040
.086
.461
.804
.063
.081
.784
.564
.048
.057
.835
.529
.051
.096
.534
.750
.034
.097
.350
.881
.050
.099
.508
.769
.074
.056
1.326
.262
.219
.106
2.060
.080
.136
.080
1.706
.144
.103
.233
.445
.816
.183
.167
1.098
.369

Findings: Adjustment problem areas were not significantly correlated with Mothers
Education.
Fathers Education.
138
Table 87.
One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education (GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.621
5.565
6.187
.802
5.186
5.988
.311
3.716
4.027
.925
5.798
6.723
1.098
5.688
6.786
.501
6.724
7.225
.323
4.274
4.597
.873
8.115
8.988
.344
4.791
5.135
2.837
15.095
17.932
2.137
9.138
11.275
df Mean Square
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
5
75
80
Sig.
.124
.074
1.675
.151
.160
.069
2.319
.052
.062
.050
1.257
.292
.185
.077
2.393
.045
.220
.076
2.895
.019
.100
.090
1.117
.359
.065
.057
1.134
.350
.175
.108
1.614
.167
.069
.064
1.077
.380
.567
.201
2.819
.022
.427
.122
3.508
.007

Findings: Social-Personal, Living and Dining, and Financial Aid, and Placement
problem areas were correlated with Fathers Education. A run of Tukey analyses
indicated the following results:
The contrast group between Fathers Education at the level of some college and
Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level was significant at the .05 level, with the first group
having more problems in the Social-Personal problem area.
The contrast group between Fathers Education at the level of some college and
Fathers Education at Ph.D. level was significant at the .05 level, with the first group
having more problems in the Living and Dining problem area.
The contrast group between Fathers Education at some college and Fathers
139
Education at the Ph.D. level was significant at the .05 level, with the first group having
more problems in the Financial Aid problem area.
The contrast group between Fathers Education at high school level and Fathers
Education at the Ph.D. level was significant at the .05 level, with the first group having
more problems in the Placement Service problem area.
The contrast group between Fathers Education with some college and Fathers
Education at Ph.D. level was significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more
problems in the Placement problem area.
Table 88.
One-way ANOVA for Major (GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.222
df Mean Square
10
.022
6.363
69
.092
6.586
.402
79
10
.040
5.598
69
.081
5.999
.207
79
10
.021
4.015
69
.058
4.222
.905
79
10
.090
6.279
69
.091
7.184
.925
79
10
.092
6.329
69
.092
7.253
1.312
79
10
.131
5.573
69
.081
6.885
.605
79
10
.060
4.026
69
.058
4.631
79
140
Sig.
.241
.991
.495
.888
.356
.961
.994
.457
1.008
.446
1.624
.118
1.037
.423
Table 88 continued.
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.242
df Mean Square
10
.124
7.699
69
.112
8.942
.693
79
10
.069
5.898
69
.085
6.591
3.104
79
10
.310
14.456
69
.210
17.560
1.020
79
10
.102
12.049
69
.175
13.069
79
Sig.
1.113
.365
.811
.619
1.482
.165
.584
.821

Findings: Adjustment problems were not correlated with Major.
Country of Origin.
Table 89.
One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.875
df Mean Square
5
.175
5.737
75
.076
6.612
.497
80
5
.099
5.588
75
.075
6.085
.076
80
5
.015
4.161
75
.055
4.237
80
141
Sig.
2.287
.054
1.333
.260
.274
.926
Table 89 continued.
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.806
df Mean Square
5
.161
6.468
75
.086
7.275
1.547
80
5
.309
5.821
75
.078
7.369
1.355
80
5
.271
5.597
75
.075
6.953
.233
80
5
.047
4.427
75
.059
4.660
.996
80
5
.199
8.035
75
.107
9.031
1.005
80
5
.201
5.659
75
.075
6.664
1.269
80
5
.254
16.662
75
.222
17.932
1.851
80
5
.370
11.334
75
.151
13.185
80
Sig.
1.870
.110
3.987
.003
3.632
.005
.789
.561
1.859
.112
2.665
.028
1.143
.345
2.450
.041

Findings: Living and Dining, Health Service, Student Activity, and Placement
Services were correlated with Country of Origin. A run of the Tukey analyses revealed
the following results:
The contrast between the Middle East students and Asian students was significant
at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems Living and Dining problem
area.
142
at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Living and Dining problem
area.
The contrast between the Middle East students and North American students was
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Living and
Dining problem area.
The contrast between the Middle East students and South American students was
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Living and
The contrast between the Middle East students and Asian students was significant
at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems Health Service problem area.
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Health Service
problem area.
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Student Activity
problem area.
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Placement
Service problem area.
significant at the .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Placement
adjustment problem areas and background factors.
Table 90.
Background Factors( GSU).
Adm
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
Age
Foreign
Work
TOEFL
TimeC
TimeUS
Gender
Relvance
Community
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Mothers
Education
Heal
Relig
Eng
X
Stud
Fin
X
X
143
Pla
Table 90 continued.
Adm
Ori
Aca
Fathers
Education
Major
Country of
Origin
Soc
X
Liv
X
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
Fin
X
Pla
X
Note: Adm refers to Admission and Selection

Eng refers to English Language; Stud refers to Student Activity
Fin refers to Financial Aid; Pla refers to Placement Service
The above table indicates that adjustment problem areas were not correlated with
Previous International Experience, Length of Stay, Perceived Relevance of Study,
Community of Origin, Marital Status, Sources of Support, Mothers Education, Major,
and Country of Origin. Among adjustment problem areas, the English Language problem
area was correlated with the largest number of background factors.
FSU and GSU Analyses
variables, and One-way ANOVA and Tukey for categorical variables to analyze the
relationships among resilience characteristics and background factors. The general
hypotheses are that adjustment problems are correlated with background factors.
among adjustment problem areas and background factor by using the combined FSU and
GSU data.
Table 91.
Correlations Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors (FSU and
GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Age
-.073
Foreign
-.018
Work
-.061
TOEFL
.017
TimeC
-.101
TimeUSA
-.038
.214
289
-.005
.757
289
.072
.300
289
.002
.768
289
-.041
.086
289
-.068
.525
289
.033
.932
289
.223
289
.974
289
.490
289
.250
289
.574
289
144
Table 91 continued.
Age
Foreign
Work
Pearson .079
-.021
.091
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .180
.726
.123
N 289
289
289
AVGSOCIA
Pearson -.099
.060
-.072
Correlation
.306
.219
N 289
289
289
AVGLIVIN
Pearson .059
-.089
Correlation .156*
*
.317
.129
N 289
289
289
AVGHEALT
Pearson .010
.079
.029
Correlation
.180
.628
N 289
289
289
AVGRELIG
Pearson .048
.107
.064
Correlation
.069
.279
N 289
289
289
AVGENGLI
Pearson .181*
-.079 .156**
Correlation *
.182
.008
N 289
289
289
AVGACTIV
Pearson .010
.080
.041
Correlation
.176
.489
N 289
289
289
AVGFINAN
Pearson -.049
.006
-.051
Correlation
.918
.385
N 289
289
289
AVGPLAC
Pearson -.092
.019
-.111
E
Correlation
.744
.060
N 289
289
289
AVGACAD
E
TOEFL
-.062
TimeC
-.094
TimeUSA
-.013
.297
289
.038
.113
289
-.031
.826
289
-.013
.523
289
.003
.597
289
-.098
.831
289
-.119*
.964
289
.003
.095
289
.010
.044
289
.019
.963
289
-.022
.864
289
.001
.742
289
.083
.710
289
-.280**
.993
289
-.111
.161
289
-.089
.000
289
-.050
.060
289
-.070
.129
289
-.034
.402
289
-.032
.237
289
-.006
.563
289
.040
.590
289
.018
.915
289
-.028
.500
289
.039
.756
289
.640
289
.507
289

Findings: Living and Dining was strongly negatively correlated with Age, with
younger students having more problems in the area. English language problem area was
strongly correlated with Age, with older students having more problems in the area.
Experience.
Findings: Adjustment problem areas were not correlated to Previous International
Experience.
145

Work Experience.
Findings: The English language problem area was significantly correlated with
Previous Professional Work Experience, the longer the working period, the more
problems in English.
Findings: The English language problem area was correlated to TOEFL scores, the higher
the scores, the less the problems in English language.
Current University. However, Living and Dining was significantly negatively correlated
with the Length of Stay in US, the longer the stay, the less the problems in the area.
T-tests were carried out for the dichotomous variables.
Table 92.
Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIE
N
AVGACA
DE
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.087
.769
-1.952
286
.052
-.06022
.030843
-1.951
283.829
.052
-.06022
.030872
-1.234
286
.218
-.03720
.030153
-1.232
282.041
.219
-.03720
.030201
-1.535
286
.126
-.04436
.028897
-1.532
280.590
.127
-.04436
.028956
.296
.483
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.587
.488
146

Table 92 continued.
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
F
A
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
T
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
G
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
LI
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
V
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
N
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
E
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
.709
.129
3.674
.442
.035
.033
1.417
.001
t-test for
Equality
of Means
Sig.
df

.025
-.07626 .033928
.400
-2.248
286
.026
-.07626
.033960
.720
-2.246 283.82
6
-2.257
286
.025
-.06938
.030741
.025
-.06938
.030703
.056
-2.260 285.90
4
-4.458
286
.000
-.15384
.034506
.000
-.15384
.034606
.507
-4.445 277.02
2
-.917
286
.360
-.02954
.032227
.360
-.02954
.032233
.851
-.916 285.26
6
.836
286
.404
.03641
.043570
.404
.03641
.043566
.857
.836 285.59
4
-.372
286
.710
-.01197
.032147
.710
-.01197
.032139
.235
-.373 285.75
1
-2.703
286
.007
-.13932
.051550
.007
-.13932
.051618
.978
-2.699 282.89
9
-2.539
286
.012
-.11053
.043528
-2.536 283.46
7
.012
-.11053
.043576

Findings:
The social-Personal problem area was correlated with Gender, with female students
having more problems in the area.
The living and Dining problem area was correlated with Gender, with female students
The health Service problem area was correlated with Gender, with female students
The financial Aid problem area was correlated with Gender, with female students
147
The placement Service problem area was correlated with Gender, with female
students having more problems in the area.
Table 93.
Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIE
N
AVGACA
DE
AVGSOCI
A
AVGLIVIN
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.470
.494
-1.240
285
.216
-.07936
.063986
-1.100
18.769
.285
-.07936
.072177
-1.130
285
.260
-.07027
.062202
-.846
18.191
.408
-.07027
.083047
-2.174
285
.031
-.12906
.059368
-1.654
18.235
.115
-.12906
.078041
-.919
285
.359
-.06480
.070524
-.875
19.092
.392
-.06480
.074054
.726
285
.468
.04652
.064041
.978
21.787
.339
.04652
.047564
1.491
6.729
.077
1.993
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.223
.010
.781
.159
148

Table 93 continued.
AVGHEAL
Equal
T variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGRELI
Equal
G variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGENG
Equal
LI variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGACTI
Equal
V variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGFINA
Equal
N variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGPLAC
Equal
E variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.162
.687
-.108
285
-.121
20.114
.905
-.00792
.065347
-.515
285
.607
-.03433
.066648
-.447
18.679
.660
-.03433
.076889
-1.414
285
.158
-.12710
.089876
-1.130
18.388
.273
-.12710
.112455
-2.166
285
.031
-.14261
.065826
-1.888
18.701
.075
-.14261
.075523
.614
285
.540
.06584
.107220
.684
20.026
.502
.06584
.096247
-.693
285
.489
-.06273
.090457
-.791
20.197
.438
-.06273
.079345
1.952
1.476
1.385
.737
.323
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.163
.225
.240
.391
.570

.914 -.00792 .073677

Study.
149
Findings: The student Activity problem area was significantly correlated with
Perceived Relevance of Study, with students thinking that their study was irrelevant to
their future goals suffering more problems in the area.
Campus. The following table reports the T-test results for Campus.
Table 94.
Independent Samples Test for Different Campuses (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIE
N
AVGACA
DE
AVGSOCI
A
AVGLIVIN
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.546
.461
-1.052
287
.294
-.03605
.034259
-.997
133.639
.321
-.03605
.036167
-1.736
287
.084
-.05772
.033239
-1.634
132.081
.105
-.05772
.035314
.781
287
.436
.02500
.032033
.798
155.900
.426
.02500
.031329
-1.254
287
.211
-.04730
.037726
-1.216
139.832
.226
-.04730
.038894
-3.945
287
.000
-.13178
.033400
-3.533
121.102
.001
-.13178
.037299
2.757
1.134
1.391
8.274
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.098
.288
.239
.004
150

Table 94 continued.
AVGHEAL
Equal
T variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGRELI
Equal
G variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGENG
Equal
LI variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGACTI
Equal
V variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGFINA
Equal
N variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
AVGPLAC
Equal
E variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
.415
.520
-.804
287
-.796
145.427
.427
-.03169
.039822
.284
287
.777
.01012
.035659
.306
175.597
.760
.01012
.033089
2.230
287
.027
.10668
.047843
2.351
166.975
.020
.10668
.045370
-.446
287
.656
-.01584
.035545
-.432
139.418
.667
-.01584
.036701
-2.056
287
.041
-.11775
.057273
-1.955
134.602
.053
-.11775
.060232
-.806
287
.421
-.03918
.048586
-.761
132.701
.448
-.03918
.051489
1.266
4.741
.688
3.055
2.886
t-test for
Equality of
Means
.261
.030
.408
.082
.090

.422 -.03169 .039393
Hypotheses: Adjustment problems are correlated with different Universities.

Findings:
The contrast between GSU and FSU students was significant at .05 level in Living
151
and Dining, with GSU students having significantly more problems in Living and Dining
than FSU students.
The contrast between GSU and FSU students was significant at .05 level in English,
with FSU students having significantly more problems in English than GSU students.
The contrast between GSU and FSU students was significant at .05 level in
Financial Aid, with GSU students having significantly more problems in the Financial
Aid problem area.
Table 95.
ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.074
df Mean Square
2
.037
19.718
284
.069
19.792
.125
286
2
.062
18.562
284
.065
18.687
.011
286
2
.005
17.217
284
.061
17.228
.139
286
2
.070
23.846
284
.084
23.985
.013
286
2
.006
19.743
284
.070
19.756
.025
286
2
.012
26.077
284
.092
26.102
.286
286
2
.143
21.092
284
.074
21.378
286
152
Sig.
.532
.588
.956
.386
.090
.914
.830
.437
.092
.912
.134
.874
1.925
.148
Table 95 continued.
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.259
df Mean Square
2
.129
38.854
284
.137
39.112
.175
286
2
.088
21.003
284
.074
21.178
.299
286
2
.149
55.051
284
.194
55.350
.170
286
2
.085
39.240
284
.138
39.410
286
Sig.
.945
.390
1.185
.307
.770
.464
.615
.541

Findings: Adjustment problems were not significantly correlated with Community of
Origin.
Status.
Table 96.
ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.511
df Mean Square
4
.128
19.262
281
.069
19.773
.297
285
4
.074
18.385
281
.065
18.681
.373
285
4
.093
16.850
281
.060
17.224
285
153
Sig.
1.862
.117
1.134
.341
1.557
.186
Table 96 continued.
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.527
df Mean Square
4
.132
23.447
281
.083
23.974
.626
285
4
.156
19.103
281
.068
19.729
.664
285
4
.166
25.431
281
.091
26.095
.529
285
4
.132
20.849
281
.074
21.378
2.056
285
4
.514
36.973
281
.132
39.029
.320
285
4
.080
20.826
281
.074
21.147
1.496
285
4
.374
53.840
281
.192
55.336
.613
285
4
.153
38.792
281
.138
39.405
285
Sig.
1.579
.180
2.301
.059
1.834
.122
1.783
.132
3.907
.004
1.081
.366
1.952
.102
1.110
.352

Findings: English language problem area was correlated with Marital Status. A run
of Tukey analyses indicated the following result. The contrast between single students
and married students accompanied by their spouses was significant at .05 level, with
married student accompanied by spouses having more problems in English.
154
Marital Status.
Table 97.
ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.466
df Mean Square
4
.117
19.374
282
.069
19.840
.077
286
4
.019
18.671
282
.066
18.748
.320
286
4
.080
16.957
282
.060
17.277
.163
286
4
.041
23.945
282
.085
24.108
.313
286
4
.078
19.497
282
.069
19.810
.182
286
4
.045
26.021
282
.092
26.203
.266
286
4
.066
20.977
282
.074
21.242
1.961
286
4
.490
37.014
282
.131
38.976
.298
286
4
.074
20.923
282
.074
21.220
286
155
Sig.
1.697
.151
.290
.884
1.330
.259
.480
.751
1.132
.342
.493
.741
.892
.469
3.736
.006
1.003
.406
Table 97 continued.
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Among
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.135
df Mean Square
4
.284
54.503
282
.193
55.638
1.025
286
4
.256
38.552
282
.137
39.577
286
Sig.
1.468
.212
1.874
.115

Findings: The English Language problem area was correlated with Sources of
Support.
Mothers Education.
Table 98.
ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.249
19.523
19.772
.317
18.356
18.673
.189
17.013
17.202
.364
23.559
23.922
.488
19.213
19.701
.282
25.807
26.089
.541
20.732
21.273
1.656
37.358
39.014
156
df Mean Square
5
279
284
5
279
284
5
279
284
5
279
284
5
279
284
5
279
284
5
279
284
5
279
284
Sig.
.050
.070
.713
.614
.063
.066
.962
.441
.038
.061
.619
.686
.073
.084
.862
.507
.098
.069
1.416
.218
.056
.092
.609
.693
.108
.074
1.456
.205
.331
.134
2.473
.033
Table 98 continued.
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.547
20.575
21.122
.613
54.437
55.049
.378
38.970
39.348
df Mean Square
5
279
284
5
279
284
5
279
284
Sig.
.109
.074
1.484
.195
.123
.195
.628
.679
.076
.140
.541
.745

Findings: The English Language problem area was correlated with Mothers
Education. A run of the Tukey analyses indicated that: The contrast group between
Mothers Education at less than high school and Mothers Education at the masters level
was different at the .05 level, with students Mothers Education at the level of less than
high school having more problems with the English Language.
Fathers Education.
Table 99.
ANOVA for Fathers Education (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.689
18.132
18.821
.303
17.551
17.854
.489
15.662
16.151
.925
21.658
22.583
.852
17.978
18.830
.196
25.270
25.465
.310
20.993
21.303
Sig.
.138
.065
2.105
.065
.061
.063
.955
.446
.098
.057
1.730
.128
.185
.078
2.367
.040
.170
.065
2.625
.024
.039
.091
.429
.828
.062
.076
.817
.538
df Mean Square
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
157
Table 99 continued.
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.375
36.109
37.484
.331
19.106
19.437
3.129
51.412
54.541
1.250
35.399
36.649
df Mean Square
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
5
277
282
Sig.
.275
.130
2.110
.064
.066
.069
.959
.443
.626
.186
3.371
.006
.250
.128
1.956
.085

Findings: Social-Personal, Living and Dining, and Financial Aid problem areas were
correlated with Fathers Education. A run of Tukey analyses indicated that:
The contrast group between Fathers Education at less than high school and Fathers
Education at the masters level was significant at the .05 level, with the second group
having more problems in the Living and Dining problem area.
The contrast group between Fathers Education at the masters level and Fathers
Education at the Ph.D. level is significant at the .05 level, with the first group having
more problems in the Living and Dining problem area.
The contrast group between Fathers Education at the masters level and fathers
education at the Ph.D. level was significant at the .05 level, with the first group having
more problems in the Financial Aid problem area.
Table 100.
ANOVA for Major (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.027
18.755
18.783
.000
17.823
17.823
.152
16.364
16.516
.084
22.777
22.861
158
df Mean Square
1
278
279
1
278
279
1
278
279
1
278
279
Sig.
.027
.067
.407
.524
.000
.064
.000
.997
.152
.059
2.582
.109
.084
.082
1.025
.312
Table 100 continued.

AVGLIVIN
AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Among Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.010
19.170
19.179
.146
24.847
24.993
.007
21.052
21.058
.150
37.688
37.838
.147
20.147
20.295
.667
52.185
52.852
.009
37.539
37.548
df Mean Square
1
278
279
1
278
279
1
278
279
1
278
279
1
278
279
1
278
279
1
278
279
Sig.
.010
.069
.141
.707
.146
.089
1.635
.202
.007
.076
.087
.769
.150
.136
1.107
.294
.147
.072
2.034
.155
.667
.188
3.552
.061
.009
.135
.069
.793

Findings: Adjustment problems were not significantly correlated with Major.
Country of Origin.
Table 101.
ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU and GSU).
AVGADM
AVGORIEN
AVGACADE
AVGSOCIA
AVGLIVIN
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.435
18.035
18.470
.748
16.923
17.670
.706
15.249
15.955
1.250
21.265
22.515
.972
18.268
19.240
159
df
5
275
280
5
275
280
5
275
280
5
275
280
5
275
280
Mean
Square
.087
.066
Sig.
1.327
.253
.150
.062
2.430
.035
.141
.055
2.546
.028
.250
.077
3.233
.007
.194
.066
2.927
.014

AVGHEALT
AVGRELIG
AVGENGLI
AVGACTIV
AVGFINAN
AVGPLACE
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
.658
24.435
25.093
.551
20.538
21.089
3.673
33.568
37.242
2.133
18.236
20.369
1.416
51.939
53.355
.576
36.945
37.521
df
5
275
280
5
275
280
5
275
280
5
275
280
5
275
280
5
275
280
Mean
Square
.132
.089
Sig.
1.480
.196
.110
.075
1.476
.198
.735
.122
6.019
.000
.427
.066
6.433
.000
.283
.189
1.499
.190
.115
.134
.857
.510

Findings: Orientation, Academic Records, Social-personal, Living and Dining,
English Language, and Student Activity problem areas were significantly correlated with
Country of Origin. A run of the Tukey analyses indicated that:
The contrast between students from Middle East and students from Europe was
significant at .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Social-personal.
The contrast between students from Africa and students from North America was
significant at .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Living and Dining.
The contrast between students from Asia and students from Europe was
significant at .05 level, with the first group having more problems in English.
The contrast between students from Asia and students from North America was
The contrast between students from Asia and students from South America was
The contrast between students from Middle East and students from Asia was
significant at .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Student Activity.
significant at .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Student Activity.
The contrast between students from Middle East and students from North America
was significant at .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Student
Activity.
The contrast between students from Middle East and students from South America
160
was significant at .05 level, with the first group having more problems in Student
Activity.
adjustment problems and background factors.
Table 102.
Background Factors (FSU and GSU).
Adm
Age
Foreign
Work
TOEFL
TimeC
TimeUS
Gender
Relvance
Campuses
Community
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Mothers
Education
Fathers
Education
Major
Country of
Origin
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
X
Heal
Relig
Eng
X
Stud
Fin
Pla
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Previous International Experience, Length of Stay at Current University, Community of
Origin and Major. Because these background factors were not correlated with adjustment
problems, they were not included in the multiple regression studies in the next section.
Also, the Mothers Education background factor was excluded from the multiple
regression analyses. The reason is that although adjustment problems vary by both
Mothers Education and Fathers Education, Fathers Education correlates more with
adjustment.
Among adjustment problem areas, the English Language problem area was
correlated with the largest number of background factors, followed by the Living and
Dining, Social-Personal, and Financial Aid problem areas.
Among the background factors, Country of Origin was correlated with the largest
number of adjustment problem areas, followed by Gender, Campus, and Fathers
Education.
161
Multiple Regression Analyses

Statistical analyses in the above section indicated that the following background
factors were correlated with adjustment problemsAge, Previous Work Experience,
TOEFL, Time in the U.S., Gender, Perceived Relevance of Study, Campus, Marital
Status, Sources of Support, Fathers Education, and Country of Origin. Statistical
analyses also indicated that resilience characteristics were significantly negatively
correlated with adjustment problems. However, little was known about the collective
impacts of both the background factors and resilience characteristics on the variance of
adjustment. Therefore, multiple regression analyses were utilized to uncover important
relationships and identify significant predictors of adjustment problems.
Before multiple analyses were carried out, data were further processed to suit the
requirements for multiple regression analyses.
1. Gender is coded with 1 and 0 coding, where 1 represents male, and 0 female.
2. Perceived Relevance of Study is coded with 1 and 0 coding, where 1 represents
relevant and 0 irrelevant.
3. Campuses is coded with 1 and 0 coding, where 1 represents FSU and 0 GSU.
4. Marital Status is coded with 1 and 0 coding, where 1 represents Single and 0 Married.
5. Sources of Support were coded in three variables of Support1, Support2, and
Support3. Support1 is the group that gets university assistantship and/or fellowship;
Support2 is the group that gets support from Private Foundation and other sources;
Support3 is the group that gets support from Family and/or self support. The control
group is the group who gets support from home government and/or agencies.
6. Fathers Education is coded in three variables of Father1, Father2, and Father3.
Father1 is the group whose Fathers Education is at the level of high school or less;
Father 2 is the group whose Fathers Education is at the level of some college or college;
Father 3 is the group whose Fathers Education is the master level; the control group is
the group whose Fathers Education is the Ph.D. level.
7. Country of Origin is coded in five variables: Country1, Country2, Country3, Country4,
and Country5. Country1 is the group of students from African country group; Country2 is
the group from Asian country group; Country3 is the group from Middle East country
group; Country4 is the group from European country group, Country5 is the group from
North America country group; and the control group is the group from South America
country group.
Before regression analyses were carried out, correlations of all independent variables
were carried out. Even though some variables significantly correlated with others, the
correlation was not high enough to cause collineality problems.
There are three groups of multiple regression analyses. In the first group, raw scores
for resilience characteristics were used. In the second group, z scores for resilience
characteristics were used. In the third group, z scores for the adjustment problems and z
scores for resilience characteristics were used.
The z score for an item, indicates how far and in what direction, that item deviates
from its distribution's mean, expressed in units of its distribution's standard deviation.
scores are sometimes called standard scores. The z score transformation is especially
useful when seeking to compare the relative standings of items from distributions with
162
different means and/or different standard deviations.

(http://www.animatedsoftware.com/statglos/sgzscore.htm)
Group One Multiple Regression Analyses
There are eleven categories of problem areas, each of which was used as a dependent
variable in the eleven multiple regression analyses.
Admission and Selection Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple
regression. The dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Admission and
Selection problem area, and the independent variables were seven resilience
characteristics, Gender, Perceived Relevance of Study, Professional Work Experience,
Age, Campus, TOEFL, Time in USA, Marital Status, Country of Origin, Fathers
Education, and Sources of Support. The adjusted R square was 11.7% and the overall
relationship was significant (F = 2.428, p < 0.01). The following table provides
coefficients to all the independent variables.
Table 103.
Coefficients Relating to Admission and Selection Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.661
OPTIMISM -3.938E-04
ESTEEM 4.549E-03
FOCUS -5.471E-03
COGFLEX -4.760E-03
SOCIAL -1.288E-03
ORGANIZE -1.253E-03
PROACTIV 3.265E-04
gender -5.412E-02
relevance -1.784E-02
work 3.414E-05
age -1.010E-03
campuses -5.704E-03
TOEFL 1.844E-04
TIMEUSA -2.091E-04
MARITALS -2.368E-02
COUNTRY1
.123
COUNTRY2 2.148E-02
COUNTRY3 5.968E-02
COUNTRY4
.101
COUNTRY5 -6.906E-02
FATHER1
7.017E-02
FATHER2
.122
FATHER3
.213
SUPPORT1 -3.230E-02
SUPPORT2
.103
SUPPORT3
3.677E-02
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.324
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.002
.032
.063
.001
.005
.035
.000
.001
.034
.084
.050
.064
.070
.108
.061
.060
.067
.072
.111
.081
163
Sig.
5.130
-.249
2.525
-3.055
-2.766
-.840
-.914
.184
-1.694
-.282
.065
-.196
-.162
.456
-.287
-.692
1.474
.433
.931
1.441
-.638
1.144
2.048
3.184
-.446
.927
.454
.000
.804
.012
.002
.006
.402
.362
.854
.091
.778
.948
.845
.872
.649
.775
.490
.142
.666
.353
.151
.524
.254
.042
.002
.656
.355
.650
Beta
-.021
.245
-.294
-.221
-.062
-.064
.014
-.103
-.016
.006
-.021
-.010
.028
-.018
-.045
.108
.040
.072
.110
-.040
.128
.230
.292
-.051
.068
.047
a Dependent Variable: AVGADM
Note: OPTIMISM refers to Positive: The World

PROACTIV refers to Proactive
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics and background factors significantly predict
problems in Admission and Selection.
Findings:
Positive: Yourself significantly predicted the Admission and Selection problem area.
Focused significantly negatively predicted the Admission and Selection problem area.
Flexible: Thoughts significantly negatively predicted the Admission and Selection
problem area.
It is important to know the global effect of the categorical variableFathers
Education on the dependent variable. The method of forced order of entry of the
categorical variable was used. Regression was run again with Fathers Education
Entered last, and having the following table.
Table 104.
Model Summary with Fathers Education Entered Last.
Model
1
2
Std. Change
RR Square Adjusted
R Square Error of Statistics
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.398
.159
.084 .251391
.159
2.114
.445
.198
.117 .246804
.040
4.226
df1
23
3
df2
Sig. F
Change
258
.003
255
.006
Fathers Education significantly predicted the Admission and Selection problem

area.
Students with their Fathers Education at the college level had significantly more
problems in the Admission and Selection problem area than students with their Fathers
Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with their Fathers Education at the masters level had significantly more
problems in the Admission and Selection problem area than students with Fathers
Education at the Ph.D. level.
Orientation Service Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in Orientation Service problem area,
and the independent variables were seven resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived
Relevance of Study, Professional Work Experience, Age, Campus, TOEFL, Time in
164
USA, Marital Status, Country of Origin, Fathers Education, and Sources of Support. The
adjusted R square was 6.1%, and the overall relationship was significant (F = 1.703, p <
0.05). The following table provides coefficients to all the independent variables.
Table 105.
Coefficients Relating to Orientation Service Problem Area.
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.761
OPTIMISM
-2.183E-03
ESTEEM
4.174E-03
FOCUS
-4.478E-03
COGFLEX
6.605E-05
SOCIAL
-2.702E-03
ORGANIZE
1.608E-03
PROACTIV
-4.352E-04
gender
-4.334E-02
relevance
-2.201E-02
work
1.992E-04
age
-2.447E-03
campuses
-3.703E-02
TOEFL
-2.351E-04
TIMEUSA
6.404E-04
MARITALS
-1.622E-02
COUNTRY1
.157
COUNTRY2
-1.988E-02
COUNTRY3
2.785E-02
COUNTRY4
8.631E-02
COUNTRY5
-.177
FATHER1
8.482E-02
FATHER2
.120
FATHER3
.161
SUPPORT1
-.107
SUPPORT2
-8.932E-02
SUPPORT3
-6.477E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGORIEN
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Beta
.325
.002
-.118
.002
.231
.002
-.247
.002
.003
.002
-.134
.001
.085
.002
-.020
.032
-.085
.063
-.021
.001
.037
.005
-.053
.035
-.065
.000
-.037
.001
.058
.034
-.031
.084
.141
.050
-.038
.064
.035
.070
.097
.109
-.107
.062
.159
.060
.231
.067
.227
.073
-.173
.111
-.061
.081
-.085
Sig.
5.419
-1.372
2.308
-2.491
.038
-1.756
1.169
-.245
-1.352
-.347
.379
-.473
-1.046
-.579
.875
-.472
1.865
-.399
.433
1.230
-1.633
1.378
2.002
2.401
-1.474
-.804
-.797
.000
.171
.022
.013
.970
.080
.244
.807
.178
.729
.705
.636
.297
.563
.383
.637
.063
.690
.666
.220
.104
.169
.046
.017
.142
.422
.426

problems in Orientation Service.
Findings:
Positive: Yourself significantly predicted the Orientation Service problem area.
Focused significantly negatively predicted the Orientation Service problem area.
It is important to know the global effect of the categorical variableCountry of
Origin on the dependent variable. The method of forced order of entry of the categorical
variable was used. Regression was run again with Country of Origin entered last, and
having the following table.
165
Table 106.
Model Summary with Country of Origin Entered Last.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.324
.105
.033 .251374
.105
1.457
.385
.148
.061 .247701
.043
2.553
df1
Df2
Sig. F
Change
260
.093
255
.028
21
5
Country of origin significantly predicted problems in the Orientation Service

problem area. Students from Africa had significantly more problems in Orientation
Service than students from North America.
Academic Record Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Academic Record problem area, and
the independent variables were seven resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived
Table 107.
Coefficients Relating to Academic Record Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.739
OPTIMISM 4.765E-04
ESTEEM 2.327E-03
FOCUS -3.350E-03
COGFLEX -3.576E-03
SOCIAL -1.217E-03
ORGANIZE -1.406E-03
PROACTIV -9.183E-04
gender -5.794E-02
work 3.965E-04
age
1.457E-03
campuses
3.720E-02
TOEFL -1.768E-04
TIMEUSA
1.475E-04
MARITALS
1.352E-02
COUNTRY1
.100
COUNTRY2 -5.717E-04
COUNTRY3 -3.108E-02
COUNTRY4 -9.358E-03
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.306
.001
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.002
.030
.060
.000
.005
.033
.000
.001
.032
.079
.047
.061
.066
166
Sig.
5.676
.318
1.366
-1.977
-2.197
-.839
-1.084
-.548
-1.918
-1.356
.800
.299
1.114
-.462
.214
.417
1.263
-.012
-.512
-.142
.000
.751
.173
.049
.029
.402
.280
.584
.056
.176
.425
.765
.266
.644
.831
.677
.208
.990
.609
.888
Beta
.027
.134
-.193
-.178
-.063
-.077
-.043
-.118
-.080
.078
.033
.068
-.029
.014
.027
.093
-.001
-.040
-.011

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
COUNTRY5
-.133
FATHER1
9.823E-02
FATHER2
.113
FATHER3
.173
SUPPORT1 -5.308E-02
SUPPORT2
4.089E-02
SUPPORT3
1.467E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGACADE
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.102
.058
.056
.063
.068
.105
.077
Beta
-.084
.192
.227
.254
-.089
.029
.020
Sig.
-1.302
1.693
2.000
2.741
-.775
.391
.192
.194
.092
.047
.007
.439
.696
.848

problems in Academic Record.
Findings:
Focused significantly negatively predicted the Academic Record problem
area.
Flexible: Thoughts significantly negatively predicted Academic Record problem area.
Social and Personal Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Social and Personal problem
area, and the independent variables were seven resilience characteristics, Gender,
Perceived Relevance of Study, Professional Work Experience, Age, Campus, TOEFL,
Time in USA, Marital Status, Country of Origin, Fathers Education, and Sources of
Support. The adjusted R square was 14% , and the overall relationship was significant (F
= 2.752, p < 0.01). The following table provides coefficients to all the independent
variables.
Table 108.
Coefficients Relating to Social and Personal Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.747
OPTIMISM -3.144E-03
ESTEEM -1.292E-03
FOCUS -1.945E-03
COGFLEX -1.394E-03
SOCIAL -2.830E-03
ORGANIZE
7.999E-05
PROACTIV 2.587E-03
gender -6.322E-02
relevance 1.491E-02
work 2.362E-04
age -3.170E-03
campuses -1.291E-02
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.352
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.002
.035
.069
.001
.006
.038
167
Sig.
4.959
-1.824
-.659
-.998
-.745
-1.696
.054
1.343
-1.820
.217
.414
-.565
-.336
.000
.069
.510
.319
.457
.091
.957
.181
.070
.829
.679
.572
.737
Beta
-.150
-.063
-.095
-.059
-.124
.004
.103
-.109
.013
.039
-.060
-.020

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
TOEFL 1.518E-04
TIMEUSA
5.041E-04
MARITALS
3.255E-02
COUNTRY1
.163
COUNTRY2 1.376E-02
COUNTRY3 -6.874E-02
COUNTRY4
.122
COUNTRY5 -9.714E-02
FATHER1
8.567E-02
FATHER2
.157
FATHER3
.193
SUPPORT1 -2.675E-02
SUPPORT2
6.157E-02
SUPPORT3 -5.034E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGSOCIA
Sig.
.345
.635
.874
1.788
.255
-.985
1.611
-.824
1.284
2.414
2.656
-.340
.511
-.571
.730
.526
.383
.075
.799
.325
.109
.410
.200
.016
.008
.734
.609
.568
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.000
.001
.037
.091
.054
.070
.076
.118
.067
.065
.073
.079
.120
.088
Beta
.021
.040
.056
.129
.023
-.076
.121
-.052
.142
.267
.240
-.038
.037
-.058

problems in Social-Personal.
Findings:
variable was used. Regression was run again with Fathers Education entered last, and
Table 109.
Std. Change
RR Square Adjusted
the
Estimate
Model
1
.428
.183
R Square
F
Change Change
.117 .271920
.183
2.777
.468
.219
.140 .268467
.036
2.346
df1
21
5
df2
Sig. F
Change
260
.000
255
Country of Origin significantly predicted the Social-Personal problem area.

entered last, and having the following table.
168
.042
Table 110.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.435
.189
.117 .271955
.189
2.619
.468
.219
.140 .268467
.030
3.249
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
258
.000
255
.022
23
3
Fathers Education significantly predicted the Social-Personal problem area.

Students with fathers Education at the college level had significantly more
problems in the Social-Personal area than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D.
level.
Students with Fathers Education at the masters level have significantly more
problems in the Social-Personal area than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D.
level.
Living and Dining Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Living and Dining problem area,
Table 111.
Coefficients Relating to Living and Dining Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.919
OPTIMISM -3.157E-04
ESTEEM 2.574E-03
FOCUS -4.011E-03
COGFLEX -3.561E-03
SOCIAL -2.092E-03
ORGANIZE -1.180E-03
PROACTIV 5.321E-04
gender -6.808E-02
relevance 9.756E-02
work 2.119E-04
age -2.548E-03
campuses
-.130
TOEFL -5.407E-05
TIMEUSA -1.068E-03
MARITALS
2.353E-02
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.309
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.002
.030
.060
.001
.005
.034
.000
.001
.033
169
Sig.
6.209
-.209
1.497
-2.347
-2.169
-1.430
-.902
.315
-2.234
1.616
.424
-.518
-3.850
-.140
-1.535
.720
.000
.835
.136
.020
.031
.154
.368
.753
.026
.107
.672
.605
.000
.889
.126
.472
Beta
-.017
.139
-.216
-.166
-.101
-.061
.023
-.130
.090
.039
-.053
-.223
-.008
-.094
.044

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
COUNTRY1
.145
COUNTRY2 -4.322E-02
COUNTRY3 -1.536E-02
COUNTRY4
.102
COUNTRY5
-.229
FATHER1
8.677E-02
FATHER2
8.076E-02
FATHER3
.177
SUPPORT1 -3.238E-03
SUPPORT2
-.158
SUPPORT3 -4.059E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGLIVIN
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.080
.047
.061
.067
.103
.059
.057
.064
.069
.106
.077
Beta
.127
-.081
-.019
.111
-.134
.159
.152
.242
-.005
-.105
-.052
Sig.
1.813
-.913
-.251
1.529
-2.212
1.483
1.419
2.770
-.047
-1.499
-.525
.071
.362
.802
.128
.028
.139
.157
.006
.963
.135
.600

problems in Living and Dining.
Findings:
Focused significantly negatively predicted the Living and Dining problem
area.
Flexible: Thoughts significantly negatively predicted the Living and
Gender significantly predicted the Living and Dining problem area, with female
students having more problems in the area.
Campus significantly predicted Living and Dining problem area, with FSU students
having fewer problems in the area.
categorical variable was used. Regression is run again with Fathers Education entered
last, and having the following table.
Table 112.
Model
1
2
Std. Change
RR Square Adjusted
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.494
.244
.177 .238005
.244
3.629
.519
.269
.194 .235480
.025
2.855
df1
23
3
df2
Sig. F
Change
258
.000
255
.038
Fathers education significantly predicted Living and Dining problem area. Students
170
with Fathers Education at the masters level had significantly more problems than
students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Table 113.
R
R
Adjusted Std. Error of Change
Square R Square the Estimate Statistics
Model
R Square
F
Change Change
1 .461
.213
.149
.242016
.213
3.345
2 .519
.269
.194
.235480
.056
3.927
Sig. F
Change
260
.000
255
.002
df1
df2
21
5
Country of Origin significantly predicted Living and Dining problem area.

Students from North America had fewer problems in Living and Dining than students
from South America.
Students from Africa had more problems in Living and Dining than students from
Asia.
Students from African had more problems in Living and Dining than students from
North America.
Health Service Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Health Service problem area, and the
independent variables were seven resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived Relevance
of Study, Professional Work Experience, Age, Campus, TOEFL, Time in USA, Marital
Status, Country of Origin, Fathers Education, and Sources of Support. The adjusted R
square was 13.1%, and the overall relationship was significant (F = 2.635, p < 0.01). The
following table provides coefficients to all the independent variables.
Table 114.
Coefficients Relating to Health Service Problem Area.
Model
1
(Constant)
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIV
gender
relevance
work
age
campuses
Standardized
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B Std. Error
Beta
1.992
.369
-4.867E-03
.002
-.223
1.311E-03
.002
.061
-3.104E-03
.002
-.145
-1.600E-03
.002
-.065
-2.052E-03
.002
-.086
1.031E-03
.002
.046
2.450E-03
.002
.093
-.173
.036
-.288
6.065E-02
.072
.049
4.766E-04
.001
.076
-2.002E-03
.006
-.036
5.831E-03
.040
.009
171
Sig.
5.399
-2.696
.639
-1.521
-.816
-1.175
.660
1.214
-4.767
.841
.798
-.341
.145
.000
.007
.524
.129
.415
.241
.510
.226
.000
.401
.426
.733
.885

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
TOEFL -1.049E-04
TIMEUSA
7.466E-04
MARITALS -7.822E-03
COUNTRY1
.123
COUNTRY2 -5.737E-02
COUNTRY3 -3.063E-02
COUNTRY4 -6.096E-02
COUNTRY5
-.248
FATHER1
7.225E-02
FATHER2
7.033E-02
FATHER3
.108
SUPPORT1
-.141
SUPPORT2
-.151
SUPPORT3
-.111
a Dependent Variable: AVGHEALT
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.000
.001
.039
.095
.057
.073
.080
.123
.070
.068
.076
.082
.126
.092
Beta
-.014
.057
-.013
.093
-.093
-.032
-.058
-.126
.115
.115
.129
-.192
-.087
-.123
Sig.
-.228
.898
-.200
1.290
-1.014
-.419
-.765
-2.007
1.034
1.035
1.417
-1.706
-1.196
-1.201
.820
.370
.841
.198
.311
.675
.445
.046
.302
.302
.158
.089
.233
.231
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics and background factors significantly predicted

problems in Health Service.
Findings:
Positive: The World significantly negatively predicted the Health Service
problem area.
Gender significantly predicted the Health Service
problem area, with female students having more problems in the area.
Religious Service Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Religious Service problem area, and
adjusted R square was 4.4%, and the overall relationship was insignificant (F = 1.494, p
>0.05).
English Language Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in the English Language problem area,
172
Table 115.
Coefficients Relating to English Language Problem Area.
Model
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
B
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Beta
.426
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.042
.083
.001
.007
.046
.001
.001
.045
.110
.065
.084
.092
.142
.081
.078
.088
.095
.145
.106
-.091
.019
-.063
-.010
-.043
-.069
-.085
-.012
-.015
.059
.022
.094
-.215
-.069
-.101
.078
.144
-.035
.056
-.065
.118
.210
.047
-.219
.064
-.092
(Constant)
3.162
OPTIMISM -2.433E-03
ESTEEM 5.031E-04
FOCUS -1.646E-03
COGFLEX -3.174E-04
SOCIAL -1.243E-03
ORGANIZE -1.896E-03
PROACTIV -2.728E-03
gender -8.679E-03
work 4.494E-04
age
1.452E-03
campuses
7.723E-02
TOEFL -1.984E-03
TIMEUSA -1.098E-03
MARITALS -7.540E-02
COUNTRY1
.125
COUNTRY2
.108
COUNTRY3 -4.088E-02
COUNTRY4 7.214E-02
COUNTRY5
-.156
FATHER1
9.061E-02
FATHER2
.157
FATHER3
4.806E-02
SUPPORT1
-.196
SUPPORT2
.135
SUPPORT3
-.101
a Dependent Variable: AVGENGLI
Sig.
7.426
-1.168
.212
-.699
-.140
-.617
-1.052
-1.171
-.207
-.273
.652
.214
1.665
-3.731
-1.145
-1.675
1.140
1.661
-.485
.785
-1.095
1.124
2.006
.547
-2.061
.928
-.947
.000
.244
.832
.485
.889
.538
.294
.243
.836
.785
.515
.830
.097
.000
.253
.095
.256
.098
.628
.433
.275
.262
.046
.585
.040
.354
.345

problems in English Language.
Findings:
TOEFL significantly negatively predicted English language problems.
It is important to know the global effect of the categorical variableSources of
Support on the dependent variable. The method of forced order of entry of the categorical
variable was used. Regression was run again with Sources of Support entered last, and
173
Table 116.
Model Summary with Sources of Support Entered Last.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.516
.266
.200 .330119
.266
4.062
.547
.299
.227 .324482
.033
4.014
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
258
.000
255
.008
23
3
Sources of Support significantly predicted English language problems.

Students with university assistantship and/or scholarship had significantly fewer
English language problems than students with support from home government and
agencies.
Students with university assistantship and/or scholarship had significantly fewer
English language problems than students with support from private foundation and other
sources.
Student Activity Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Student Activity problem area, and
Table 117.
Coefficients Relating to Student Activity Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.793
OPTIMISM -1.128E-03
ESTEEM -9.210E-04
FOCUS -1.824E-03
COGFLEX
7.539E-04
SOCIAL -3.813E-03
ORGANIZE
3.577E-04
PROACTIV -9.100E-04
gender -2.181E-02
work 6.784E-04
age -2.531E-03
campuses -1.816E-02
TOEFL -9.414E-05
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.331
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.002
.033
.065
.001
.005
.036
.000
174
Sig.
5.421
-.697
-.501
-.997
.429
-2.435
.255
-.503
-.669
-1.019
1.267
-.481
-.504
-.228
.000
.486
.617
.320
.668
.016
.799
.615
.504
.309
.206
.631
.615
.820
Beta
-.057
-.048
-.095
.034
-.177
.018
-.038
-.040
-.059
.120
-.051
-.030
-.014

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
TIMEUSA -3.393E-05
MARITALS
3.160E-02
COUNTRY1
.170
COUNTRY2 7.087E-02
COUNTRY3 5.856E-04
COUNTRY4
.243
COUNTRY5
-.124
FATHER1
8.125E-02
FATHER2
.128
FATHER3
.143
SUPPORT1 -4.358E-02
SUPPORT2
8.839E-02
SUPPORT3 -9.126E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGACTIV
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
-.003
.057
.143
.128
.001
.256
-.070
.143
.232
.189
-.066
.057
-.113
-.046
.903
1.983
1.398
.009
3.398
-1.125
1.297
2.098
2.089
-.589
.782
-1.103
.964
.367
.048
.163
.993
.001
.262
.196
.037
.038
.556
.435
.271
.001
.035
.086
.051
.065
.071
.111
.063
.061
.068
.074
.113
.083

problems in Student Activity.
Findings: Flexible: Social significantly negative predicted Student Activity
problem area.
Table 118.
Model Summary with Country of Origin Entered Last
Model
1
2
Std. Change
RR Square Adjusted
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.397
.158
.090 .259518
.158
2.321
.470
.221
.141 .252062
.063
4.122
df1
21
5
df2
Sig. F
Change
260
.001
255
.001
Country of Origin significantly predicted Student Activity problem area.

African students had significantly more problems in Student Activity
than South American students.
Middle Eastern students had significantly more problems in Student Activity
than South American students.
African students had significantly more problems in Student Activity
than North American students.
Asian students had significantly more problems in Student Activity
175

Middle Eastern students had significantly more problems in Student Activity
Financial Aid Problems Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Financial Aid Service problem area,
Table 119.
Coefficients Relating to Financial Aid Problems Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.836
OPTIMISM -2.849E-03
ESTEEM 5.831E-03
FOCUS -6.281E-03
COGFLEX -7.926E-03
SOCIAL
1.893E-03
ORGANIZE -8.487E-05
PROACTIV 2.947E-03
gender
-.109
relevance
.111
work -5.428E-04
age
4.909E-03
campuses -7.248E-02
TOEFL -4.897E-04
TIMEUSA
1.266E-03
MARITALS
3.800E-02
COUNTRY1
.183
COUNTRY2 1.234E-02
COUNTRY3 -8.818E-02
COUNTRY4 1.037E-02
COUNTRY5
-.270
FATHER1
.211
FATHER2
.202
FATHER3
.414
SUPPORT1
4.332E-02
SUPPORT2
-.145
SUPPORT3
.116
a Dependent Variable: AVGFINAN
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.551
.003
.003
.003
.003
.003
.002
.003
.054
.108
.001
.009
.060
.001
.001
.058
.142
.084
.109
.119
.184
.104
.101
.114
.123
.188
.138
Sig.
3.334
-1.057
1.903
-2.062
-2.708
.726
-.036
.978
-2.015
1.028
-.609
.560
-1.207
-.712
1.021
.652
1.285
.146
-.808
.087
-1.463
2.027
1.990
3.637
.352
-.768
.844
.001
.291
.058
.040
.007
.469
.971
.329
.045
.305
.543
.576
.228
.477
.308
.515
.200
.884
.420
.931
.145
.044
.048
.000
.725
.443
.400
Beta
-.089
.187
-.201
-.219
.054
-.003
.077
-.124
.061
-.059
.061
-.074
-.044
.066
.043
.095
.014
-.064
.007
-.094
.230
.226
.337
.040
-.057
.088

problems in Financial Aid.
176
Findings:
Focused significantly negatively predicted Financial problem
area.
Flexible: Thoughts significantly negatively predicted Financial
problem area.
Gender significantly predicted the Financial problem area, with female students
Table 120.
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
Model
R Square
F
Change Change
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
.365
.133
.056 .428910
.133
1.721
23
258
.024
.423
.179
.095 .419792
.046
4.776
255
.003
Fathers Education significantly predicted problems in Financial Aid area.

Students with Fathers Education at high school or less had more financial
difficulties than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at college level had more financial difficulties than
students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at the masters level had more financial difficulties
than students with Fathers Education at the PhD level.
Placement Service Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Placement Service problem area,
177
Table 121.
Coefficients Relating to Placement Service Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.429
OPTIMISM -3.205E-03
ESTEEM 3.946E-03
FOCUS -7.376E-03
COGFLEX -7.635E-03
SOCIAL
1.755E-03
ORGANIZE
1.284E-03
PROACTIV 4.387E-03
gender -7.327E-02
relevance 1.184E-02
work -7.744E-04
age -2.685E-04
campuses
1.395E-02
TOEFL 3.894E-04
TIMEUSA
1.416E-03
MARITALS -7.157E-03
COUNTRY1
.160
COUNTRY2 5.276E-02
COUNTRY3 6.461E-02
COUNTRY4 8.726E-02
COUNTRY5
-.172
FATHER1
.217
FATHER2
.224
FATHER3
.271
SUPPORT1 -2.650E-02
SUPPORT2 -5.428E-02
SUPPORT3
.134
a Dependent Variable: AVGPLACE
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.457
.002
.003
.003
.002
.002
.002
.003
.045
.089
.001
.007
.050
.001
.001
.048
.118
.070
.091
.099
.153
.087
.084
.094
.102
.156
.114
Sig.
3.124
-1.432
1.550
-2.915
-3.140
.810
.663
1.753
-1.624
.132
-1.046
-.037
.280
.682
1.374
-.148
1.350
.752
.713
.883
-1.126
2.501
2.662
2.865
-.259
-.347
1.169
.002
.153
.122
.004
.002
.419
.508
.081
.106
.895
.297
.971
.780
.496
.171
.883
.178
.452
.476
.378
.261
.013
.008
.005
.796
.729
.244
Beta
-.119
.150
-.280
-.250
.060
.047
.135
-.099
.008
-.100
-.004
.017
.042
.088
-.010
.098
.070
.055
.067
-.071
.279
.297
.262
-.029
-.025
.121

problems in Placement Service.
Findings:
Focused significantly negatively predicted the Placement problem area.
Flexible: Thoughts significantly negatively predicted the Placement problem area.
178
Table 122.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.419
.175
.102 .352647
.175
2.387
.451
.203
.122 .348662
.028
2.977
df1
23
3
df2
Sig. F
Change
258
.001
255
.032
Fathers Education significantly negatively predicted problems in Placement Service

area.
Students with Fathers Education at high school or less had significant more problems
in the Placement Service than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at the college level had significantly more problems
in the Placement Service than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Student with Fathers Education at the masters level had significantly more
problems in the Placement Service than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D.
level.
The following two tables summarize the predicting variables for adjustment problem
areas.
Table 123.
Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems (I)
Dependent Variables
Admission
Orientation
Predicting Variables
Positive: Yourself, Focused, Flexible: Thoughts, Fathers
Education
Positive: Yourself, Focused, Country of Origin
Academic
Focused, Flexible: Thoughts
Social
Fathers Education, Country of Origin
Living
Focused, Flexible: Thinking, Gender, Campus, Fathers Education,

Country of Origin
Positive: The world, Gender,
Health
Religion
English
TOEFL, Sources of Support
Student Activity
Flexible: Social, Country of Origin
Finance
Focused, Flexible: Thoughts, Gender, Fathers Education
Placement
Focused, Flexible: Thoughts, Fathers Education
179
Table 124.
Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems (II)
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIVE
Gender
Relevance
Work
Age
Campus
TOEFL
Time US
Marital
Status
Country of
Origin
Fathers
Education
Sources of
Support
Adm
Ori
X*
X
X
X*
X
Aca
Soc
X
X
Liv
Heal
X
Relig
Eng
Stud
X
X
Fin
Pla
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: Positive: Yourself positively predicts adjustment problems, while the rest
resilience characteristics negatively predict adjustment problem areas.
The above table shows that Focused negatively predicted six problem areas; Flexible:
Thoughts negatively predicted five problem areas; Fathers Education predicted five
problem areas; Country of Origin predicted four problem areas; Gender predicted three
areas; Positive: Yourself predicted two problem areas; Positive: The World negatively
predicted one problem area; and Flexible: Social, Campus, TOEFL, Sources of Support
each predicted one problem area.
Among resilience characteristics, except for Positive: Yourself, the other resilience
characteristics negatively predicted adjustment problems.
Group Two Multiple Regression Analyses
In this section, 11 multiple regression analyses were carried out. Seven resilience
scores were converted into z-scores, and the seven z-scores were added to have a
combined z-score for resilience characteristics.
Admission and Selection Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple
regression. The dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Admission and
Selection problem area, and the independent variables were Resilience characteristics,
Gender, Perceived Relevance of Study, Professional Work Experience, Age, Campus,
TOEFL, Time in USA, Marital Status, Country of Origin, Fathers Education, and
Sources of Support. The adjusted R square was 9%, and the overall relationship was
180
significant (F = 2.395, p < 0.01). The following table provides coefficients to all the
independent variables.
Table 125.
Coefficients Relating to Admission and Selection Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
1.164
.313
ZPRQ -1.388E-02
gender -5.951E-02
work -6.487E-05
age -1.082E-03
campuses -3.131E-03
TOEFL 1.360E-04
TIMEUSA -3.032E-04
MARITALS -9.717E-03
COUNTRY1
.142
COUNTRY2 1.925E-02
COUNTRY3 4.771E-02
COUNTRY4
.104
COUNTRY5 -5.223E-02
FATHER1
8.027E-02
FATHER2
.120
FATHER3
.194
SUPPORT1
5.494E-03
SUPPORT2
.141
SUPPORT3
6.472E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGADM
.003
.032
.063
.001
.005
.035
.000
.001
.034
.083
.050
.064
.070
.109
.062
.060
.067
.072
.111
.081
(Constant)
Sig.
3.714
.000
-4.245
-1.876
-.300
-.123
-.208
-.089
.339
-.412
-.284
1.716
.385
.748
1.480
-.479
1.297
1.998
2.879
.077
1.272
.799
.000
.062
.765
.903
.835
.930
.735
.681
.777
.087
.701
.455
.140
.633
.196
.047
.004
.939
.204
.425
Beta
-.261
-.113
-.018
-.012
-.023
-.005
.021
-.027
-.018
.124
.036
.058
.113
-.031
.147
.226
.265
.009
.094
.083

problems in Admission and Selection.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in Admission
and Selection.
181
Table 126.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.352
.124
.068 .253554
.124
2.200
.394
.155
.090 .250462
.031
3.187
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
264
.005
261
.024
17
3
Fathers Education significantly negatively predicted the Admission and Selection

problem area.
in Admission and Selection than those with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at the masters level had significantly more
problems in Admission and Selection than those with Fathers Education at the Ph.D.
level.
Orientation Service Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Orientation Service problem
area, and the independent variables were Resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived
adjusted R square was 3.4%, and the overall relationship was insignificant (F = 1.500, p >
0.05).
Academic Record Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Academic Record problem area, and
the independent variables were Resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived Relevance
Table 127.
Coefficients Relating to Academic Record Problem Area.
Model
1
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
1.294
ZPRQ -1.237E-02
gender -6.018E-02
work 3.166E-04
age
1.591E-03
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.292
.003
.030
.059
.000
.005
182
Sig.
4.425
-4.056
-2.034
-1.364
.641
.328
.000
.000
.043
.174
.522
.743
Beta
-.249
-.123
-.080
.062
.036

Standardized
Coefficients
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
Sig.
Std. Error
Beta
Campuses
4.183E-02
.033
.077
1.267
.206
TOEFL
-2.575E-04
.000
-.042
-.688
.492
TIMEUSA
1.277E-04
.001
.012
.186
.853
MARITALS
2.165E-02
.032
.044
.678
.498
COUNTRY1
.122
.077
.114
1.586
.114
COUNTRY2
1.803E-03
.047
.004
.039
.969
COUNTRY3
-3.874E-02
.059
-.050
-.651
.515
COUNTRY4
-1.183E-02
.065
-.014
-.181
.856
COUNTRY5
-.113
.102
-.071
-1.111
.267
FATHER1
.102
.058
.200
1.769
.078
FATHER2
.112
.056
.226
2.003
.046
FATHER3
.161
.063
.237
2.570
.011
SUPPORT1
-2.498E-02
.067
-.042
-.373
.709
SUPPORT2
6.818E-02
.104
.049
.658
.511
SUPPORT3
3.103E-02
.076
.042
.411
.682
a Dependent Variable: AVGACADE

problems in Academic Record.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in Academic
Record area.
Gender significantly negatively predicted problems in the Academic Record, with
female students having more problems in the area.
Social-Personal Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in the Social and Personal problem area,
and the independent variables were resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived
183
Table 128.
Coefficients Relating to Social-Personal Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
1.116
.337
ZPRQ -1.813E-02
gender -6.545E-02
relevance 1.438E-02
work 2.639E-04
age -3.350E-03
campuses -1.914E-02
TOEFL 3.739E-04
TIMEUSA
3.098E-04
MARITALS
3.451E-02
COUNTRY1
.136
COUNTRY2 5.616E-03
COUNTRY3 -6.489E-02
COUNTRY4
.141
COUNTRY5
-.123
FATHER1
9.300E-02
FATHER2
.152
FATHER3
.191
SUPPORT1 -4.016E-02
SUPPORT2
5.712E-02
SUPPORT3 -3.904E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGSOCIA
.004
.034
.068
.001
.006
.038
.000
.001
.037
.089
.054
.069
.075
.117
.066
.065
.072
.077
.119
.087
(Constant)
Sig.
3.313
.001
-5.160
-1.921
.211
.464
-.599
-.503
.867
.392
.939
1.528
.104
-.947
1.874
-1.047
1.399
2.355
2.646
-.521
.478
-.449
.000
.056
.833
.643
.549
.615
.387
.696
.349
.128
.917
.344
.062
.296
.163
.019
.009
.603
.633
.654
Beta
-.309
-.113
.012
.044
-.064
-.030
.052
.025
.059
.107
.010
-.071
.140
-.065
.154
.260
.238
-.057
.034
-.045

problems in the Social-Personal problem area.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in Social
Personal area.
184
Table 129.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.412
.170
.116 .272090
.170
3.172
.444
.197
.135 .269098
.027
2.968
df1
17
3
df2
Sig. F
Change
264
.000
261
.032
Fathers Education significantly predicted problems in Social Personal problem area.

Students with Fathers Education at the College level had significantly more
problems in the area than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at the masters level had significantly more
problems in the area than students with fathers education at the Ph.D. level.
Table 130.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.398
.444
.158
.197
.111 .272903
.135 .269098
.158
.039
3.335
2.515
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
15
5
266
261
.000
.030
Country of Origin significantly predicted adjustment problems.

Middle Eastern students had more problems in Social-personal than North American
students.
Living and Dining Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in Living and Dining problem area, and
square was 19%, and the overall relationship was significant (F = 4.303, p < 0.01). The
185
Table 131.
Coefficients Relating to Living and Dining Problem Area.
Model
(Constant)
ZPRQ
gender
relevance
work
age
campuses
TOEFL
TIMEUSA
MARITALS
COUNTRY1
COUNTRY2
COUNTRY3
COUNTRY4
COUNTRY5
FATHER1
FATHER2
FATHER3
SUPPORT1
SUPPORT2
SUPPORT3
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
B
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Beta
1.397
-1.418E-02
-6.992E-02
9.620E-02
1.350E-04
-2.513E-03
-.127
-4.198E-05
-1.171E-03
3.295E-02
.155
-4.456E-02
-2.139E-02
.106
-.218
9.350E-02
7.792E-02
.163
2.087E-02
-.133
-1.880E-02
.295
.003
.030
.060
.000
.005
.033
.000
.001
.032
.078
.047
.060
.066
.103
.058
.057
.063
.068
.105
.076
-.267
-.133
.089
.025
-.053
-.219
-.006
-.103
.062
.135
-.083
-.026
.116
-.128
.171
.147
.224
.033
-.089
-.024
Sig.
4.729
-4.603
-2.339
1.610
.271
-.512
-3.811
-.111
-1.688
1.021
1.985
-.944
-.356
1.605
-2.119
1.603
1.374
2.572
.309
-1.271
-.246
.000
.000
.020
.109
.787
.609
.000
.912
.093
.308
.048
.346
.722
.110
.035
.110
.171
.011
.758
.205
.806

problems in Living and Dining.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in the Living
and Dining problem area.
Gender significantly predicted problems in the Living and Dining problem area, with
Campuses significantly predicted problems in the Living and Dining problem area,
with students from campuses in large cities having more problems than students from
smaller cities.
186
Table 132.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.432
.187
.141 .243165
.187
4.075
.498
.248
.190 .236081
.061
4.241
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
266
.000
261
.001
15
5
Country of Origin Significantly predicted problems in the Living and Dining

problem area.
Students from North America had significantly fewer problems in the area of Living
and Dining than students from South America.
Students from Africa had significantly more problems in the area of Living and
Dining than students from Asia.
Dining than students from North America.
Dining than students from South America.
Dining than students from Europe.
Students from Middle East had significantly more problems in the area of Living
and Dining than students from North America.
Health Service Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in Health problem area, and the independent
variables were Resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived Relevance of Study,
Professional Work Experience, Age, Campus, TOEFL, Time in USA, Marital Status,
Country of Origin, Fathers Education, and Sources of Support. The adjusted R square
was 11.6%, and the overall relationship was significant (F = 2.840, p < 0.01). The
Table 133.
Coefficients Relating to Health Service Problem Area.
Model
1
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
1.451
ZPRQ -1.621E-02
gender
-.179
relevance 6.250E-02
work 5.239E-04
age -2.404E-03
campuses -7.802E-03
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.355
.004
.036
.072
.001
.006
.040
187
Sig.
4.088
-4.377
-4.976
.871
.874
-.408
-.195
.000
.000
.000
.385
.383
.684
.846
Beta
-.265
-.297
.050
.084
-.044
-.012

Standardized
Coefficients
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
TOEFL
TIMEUSA
MARITALS
COUNTRY1
COUNTRY2
COUNTRY3
COUNTRY4
COUNTRY5
FATHER1
FATHER2
FATHER3
SUPPORT1
SUPPORT2
SUPPORT3
Std. Error
Beta
1.023E-04
5.615E-04
-5.576E-03
9.460E-02
-6.866E-02
-3.844E-02
-4.036E-02
-.279
8.150E-02
6.162E-02
9.817E-02
-.142
-.144
-9.769E-02
.000
.001
.039
.094
.057
.072
.079
.124
.070
.068
.076
.081
.126
.092
.014
.043
-.009
.072
-.112
-.041
-.038
-.143
.130
.101
.117
-.194
-.083
-.109
Sig.
.225
.673
-.144
1.010
-1.211
-.532
-.509
-2.260
1.163
.904
1.287
-1.752
-1.146
-1.065
.822
.501
.886
.314
.227
.595
.611
.025
.246
.367
.199
.081
.253
.288
a Dependent Variable: AVGHEALT

problems in Health Service.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in the Health
Gender significantly predicted problems in the Health Service problem area, with
Religious Service Problem Area

The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The dependent variable was
adjustment problems in Admission and Selection problem area, and the independent
variables were Resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived Relevance of Study,
Professional Work Experience, Age, Campus, TOEFL, Time in USA, Marital Status,
Country of Origin, Fathers Education, and Sources of Support. The adjusted R square
was 4.8%, and the overall relationship was significant (F = 1.708, p < 0.05). The
188
Table 134.
Coefficients Relating to Religious Service Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
1.290
.333
ZPRQ -1.140E-02
gender -3.932E-02
relevance 2.563E-02
work 8.898E-04
age -7.012E-03
campuses
2.661E-02
TOEFL 3.824E-05
TIMEUSA
1.457E-03
MARITALS -5.897E-02
COUNTRY1
.166
COUNTRY2 7.163E-02
COUNTRY3 8.499E-02
COUNTRY4
.129
COUNTRY5 7.430E-03
FATHER1 -6.260E-03
FATHER2
4.032E-02
FATHER3
9.532E-02
SUPPORT1
-.115
SUPPORT2 -8.650E-03
SUPPORT3
-.113
a Dependent Variable: AVGRELIG
.003
.034
.067
.001
.006
.038
.000
.001
.036
.088
.053
.068
.074
.116
.066
.064
.072
.076
.118
.086
(Constant)
Sig.
3.872
.000
-3.279
-1.166
.380
1.582
-1.268
.708
.090
1.862
-1.621
1.883
1.347
1.254
1.733
.064
-.095
.630
1.332
-1.510
-.073
-1.310
.001
.245
.704
.115
.206
.480
.929
.064
.106
.061
.179
.211
.084
.949
.924
.529
.184
.132
.942
.191
Beta
-.206
-.072
.023
.157
-.141
.044
.006
.123
-.107
.139
.129
.099
.135
.004
-.011
.073
.126
-.174
-.006
-.139

problems in the Religious Service.
Findings: Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in
the Religious Service problem area.
English Language Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in Admission and Selection problem
area, and the independent variables were Resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived
189
Table 135.
Coefficients Relating to English Language Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
2.576
.402
ZPRQ -1.730E-02
gender -4.245E-03
work 4.650E-04
age
1.105E-03
campuses
7.352E-02
TOEFL -1.991E-03
TIMEUSA -1.064E-03
MARITALS -7.719E-02
COUNTRY1
.117
COUNTRY2
.106
COUNTRY3 -4.291E-02
COUNTRY4 6.919E-02
COUNTRY5
-.160
FATHER1
8.919E-02
FATHER2
.153
FATHER3
4.603E-02
SUPPORT1
-.194
SUPPORT2
.128
SUPPORT3
-.107
a Dependent Variable: AVGENGLI
.004
.041
.081
.001
.007
.045
.001
.001
.044
.106
.064
.082
.090
.140
.079
.077
.086
.092
.143
.104
(Constant)
Sig.
6.404
.000
-4.122
-.104
-.321
.685
.165
1.619
-3.865
-1.127
-1.757
1.100
1.644
-.524
.770
-1.143
1.123
1.978
.533
-2.111
.899
-1.032
.000
.917
.748
.494
.869
.107
.000
.261
.080
.272
.101
.601
.442
.254
.262
.049
.595
.036
.370
.303
Beta
-.231
-.006
-.017
.061
.016
.090
-.215
-.067
-.103
.072
.140
-.037
.054
-.067
.116
.204
.045
-.217
.061
-.098

problems in the English Language problem area.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in the English
Language problem area.
TOEFL significantly negatively predicted problems in the English Language problem
area, the higher the scores, the fewer the problems
It is important to know the global effect of the categorical variable Sources of
Support on the dependent variable. The method of forced order of entry of the categorical
variable was used. Regression was run again with Sources of Support entered last, and
190
Table 136.
Model Summary with Sources of Support Entered Last.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.513
.263
.216 .326939
.263
5.547
.544
.296
.242 .321488
.032
4.010
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
264
.000
261
.008
17
3
Sources of Support significantly predicted problems in the English Language

problem area.
Students with assistantship and/or scholarship had significantly fewer problems
in English than students with support from home government or agencies.
Students with assistantship and/or scholarship had significantly fewer problems
in English than students with support from private foundation and other sources.
Student Activity Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in Admission and Selection problem area,
and the independent variables were Resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived
Table 137.
Coefficients Relating to Student Activity Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.221
ZPRQ -1.530E-02
gender -1.394E-02
work 6.525E-04
age -1.968E-03
campuses -2.175E-02
TOEFL 3.971E-05
TIMEUSA -9.302E-05
MARITALS
2.719E-02
COUNTRY1
.149
COUNTRY2 7.030E-02
COUNTRY3 -1.098E-02
COUNTRY4
.238
COUNTRY5
-.134
FATHER1
7.335E-02
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.315
.003
.032
.064
.001
.005
.036
.000
.001
.034
.083
.050
.064
.070
.110
.062
191
Sig.
3.881
-4.661
-.438
-1.146
1.228
-.377
-.612
.099
-.126
.791
1.789
1.399
-.171
3.382
-1.221
1.181
.000
.000
.662
.253
.221
.707
.541
.922
.900
.430
.075
.163
.864
.001
.223
.239
Beta
-.277
-.026
-.065
.115
-.040
-.036
.006
-.008
.049
.125
.127
-.013
.250
-.076
.129

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
FATHER2
.117
FATHER3
.133
SUPPORT1 -3.718E-02
SUPPORT2
8.918E-02
SUPPORT3 -8.116E-02
a Dependent Variable: AVGACTIV
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.060
.068
.072
.112
.081
Beta
.212
.176
-.056
.057
-.100
Sig.
1.933
1.965
-.516
.799
-.998
.054
.050
.606
.425
.319

problems in the Student Activity problem area.
Findings: Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in
the Student Activity problem area.
Table 138.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.377
.142
.094 .258956
.142
2.939
.454
.206
.145 .251546
.064
4.181
df1
15
5
Sig. F
Change
266
.000
261
.001
df2
Country of Origin significantly predicted problems in Student Activity areas.

Middle Eastern students had significantly more problems in Student Activity than
South American students.
European students.
North American students.
Financial Aid Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in Admission and Selection problem area,
and the independent variables were Resilience characteristics, Gender, Perceived
192
Table 139.
Coefficients Relating to Financial Aid Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1.486
.531
ZPRQ -1.233E-02
gender
-.134
relevance
.122
work -5.807E-04
age
4.166E-03
campuses -7.651E-02
TOEFL -5.694E-04
TIMEUSA
1.114E-03
MARITALS
5.977E-02
COUNTRY1
.211
COUNTRY2 3.681E-03
COUNTRY3
-.100
COUNTRY4 3.332E-02
COUNTRY5
-.264
FATHER1
.238
FATHER2
.208
FATHER3
.396
SUPPORT1
7.889E-02
SUPPORT2 -8.961E-02
SUPPORT3
.148
a Dependent Variable: AVGFINAN
.006
.054
.107
.001
.009
.060
.001
.001
.058
.140
.085
.108
.119
.185
.105
.102
.114
.122
.188
.137
Model
(Constant)
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
2.799
.006
-2.226
-2.485
1.134
-.648
.473
-1.276
-.837
.893
1.031
1.508
.043
-.927
.281
-1.428
2.268
2.044
3.471
.649
-.476
1.078
.027
.014
.258
.518
.637
.203
.403
.373
.304
.133
.965
.355
.779
.155
.024
.042
.001
.517
.635
.282
Beta
-.138
-.152
.067
-.063
.052
-.078
-.052
.058
.067
.110
.004
-.072
.022
-.092
.259
.233
.323
.074
-.035
.112

the problems in the Financial Aid problem area.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in the Financial
Aid problem area.
Gender significantly predicted problems in the Financial Aid problem area, with
It is important to know the global effect of the categorical variable Fathers
193
Table 140.
Model Summary with Father s Education Entered Last.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.315
.099
.041 .432215
.099
1.708
.376
.141
.075 .424406
.042
4.268
df1
df2
Sig. F
Change
264
.041
261
.006
17
3
Students with Fathers Education at high school or lower level had significantly
more problems in the Financial Aid problem areas than students with Fathers Education
at the Ph.D. level.
in the Financial Aid area than students with fathers education at PhD level.
Students with Fathers Education at the master level had significantly more problems
in the Financial Aid area than students with fathers education at the Ph.D. level.
Placement Service Problem Area. The data were analyzed by multiple regression.
The dependent variable was adjustment problems in Placement Service problem area, and
Table 141.
Coefficients Relating to Placement Service Problem Area.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
.978
ZPRQ -1.591E-02
gender
-.102
relevance 1.647E-02
work -8.184E-04
age -7.154E-04
campuses
9.251E-03
TOEFL 4.021E-04
TIMEUSA
1.183E-03
MARITALS
1.758E-02
COUNTRY1
.168
COUNTRY2 3.950E-02
COUNTRY3 4.832E-02
COUNTRY4
.111
COUNTRY5
-.181
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.446
.005
.045
.090
.001
.007
.050
.001
.001
.049
.118
.071
.091
.100
.155
194
Sig.
2.193
-3.418
-2.260
.182
-1.086
-.097
.184
.704
1.129
.361
1.428
.554
.532
1.113
-1.161
.029
.001
.025
.855
.279
.923
.854
.482
.260
.719
.154
.580
.595
.267
.247
Beta
-.211
-.137
.011
-.106
-.011
.011
.043
.073
.023
.104
.052
.041
.085
-.075

Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
FATHER1
.245
FATHER2
.234
FATHER3
.253
SUPPORT1
3.453E-03
SUPPORT2
2.601E-03
SUPPORT3
.178
a Dependent Variable: AVGPLACE
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.088
.086
.096
.102
.158
.115
Beta
.316
.310
.245
.004
.001
.161
Sig.
2.777
2.726
2.639
.034
.016
1.545
.006
.007
.009
.973
.987
.124

problems in the Placement Service problem area.
Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted problems in the
Placement Service problem area.
Gender significantly negatively predicted problems in the Placement Service problem
area, with female students having more problems in the areas.
Table 142.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.343
.118
.061 .360650
.118
2.069
.383
.146
.081 .356720
.029
2.950
df1
17
3
df2
Sig. F
Change
264
.009
261
.033
Fathers Education significantly predicted problems in the Placement Service

problem area.
Students with Fathers Education at high school or lower level had significantly more
problems in the area of Placement Service than students with Fathers Education at the
Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at college level had significantly more problems in
the area of Placement Service than students with Fathers Education at the PhD level.
Students with Fathers Education at the master level have significantly more
problems in the area of Placement Service than students with Fathers Education at the
Ph.D. level.
195
The following two tables summarize the predicting variables for different adjustment
problems.
Table 143.
Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems, Using Z-scores for
Resilience Characteristics (I)
Dependent Variables
Predicting Variables
Admission
Resilience characteristics, Fathers Education
Orientation
Academic Record
Resilience characteristics, Gender
Social
Resilience Characteristics, Country of Origin, Fathers
Education
Living and Dining
Resilience characteristics, Gender, Campus, Country
of Origin
Health Service
Resilience characteristics, Gender,
Religion
Resilience characteristics
English
Resilience characteristics, TOEFL, Sources of Support
Student Activity
Resilience characteristics, Country of Origin
Finance
Resilience characteristics, Gender, Fathers Education
Placement
Resilience, Gender, Fathers Education
Table 144.
Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems, Using Z-scores for
Resilience Characteristics (II)
Resilience
Characteristics
Gender
Relevance
Work
Age
Campus
TOEFL
Time US
Marital Status
Country of
Origin
Fathers
Education
Sources of
Support
Adm
X
Ori
Aca
X
Soc
X
Liv
X
Heal
X
Relig
X
Eng
X
Stud
X
Fin
X
Pla
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The above analyses indicate that resilience characteristics significantly negatively

predict ten problem areas out of eleven (For the Orientation problem area, the overall
relationship is insignificant). Gender significantly predicted five out of eleven problem
196
areas, Fathers Education predicted four out of eleven, and Country of Origin
significantly predicted three areas. Campus, TOEFL, and Sources of Support
significantly predict one of the eleven problem areas.
Group Three Multiple Regression Analyses
In group three, one multiple regression analysis was carried out. The dependent
variable is adjustment problemsusing the sum of z scores for all adjustment problems.
The independent variables are resilience characteristics (in z scores), Gender, Perceived
0.01). The following table reports coefficients for all the independent variables.
Table 145.
Coefficients Relating to Adjustment Problems.
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
2.197
ZPRQ
-.521
gender
-2.495
relevance
.178
work 8.192E-03
age -5.732E-02
campuses
-.532
TOEFL -4.927E-03
TIMEUSA
7.872E-03
MARITALS
7.174E-02
COUNTRY1
5.354
COUNTRY2
.528
COUNTRY3
-.356
COUNTRY4
3.332
COUNTRY5
-5.549
FATHER1
3.682
FATHER2
4.450
FATHER3
6.103
SUPPORT1
-1.796
SUPPORT2
.225
SUPPORT3
-.509
a Dependent Variable: ZMISPI
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
9.329
.097
.944
1.887
.016
.155
1.053
.012
.022
1.019
2.462
1.490
1.898
2.083
3.249
1.842
1.792
2.005
2.135
3.308
2.411
Sig.
.235
-5.355
-2.643
.094
.520
-.370
-.505
-.412
.359
.070
2.174
.355
-.187
1.599
-1.708
1.999
2.484
3.044
-.841
.068
-.211
.814
.000
.009
.925
.604
.712
.614
.680
.720
.944
.031
.723
.851
.111
.089
.047
.014
.003
.401
.946
.833
Beta
-.318
-.154
.005
.049
-.039
-.030
-.024
.022
.004
.152
.032
-.014
.118
-.106
.218
.271
.271
-.092
.005
-.021
Hypotheses: Resilience characteristics and Background Factors Predict Adjustment.

Findings:
Resilience characteristics significantly negatively predicted adjustment problems
Gender significantly predicted adjustment problems, with female students
having more adjustment problems.
197

Table 146.
Model
1
2
RR Square Adjusted
Std. Change
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.427
.182
.129 7.54941
.182
3.454
.459
.211
.151 7.45657
.029
3.205
df1
17
3
df2
Sig. F
Change
264
.000
261
.024
Fathers Education significantly predicted adjustment problems.

Students with Fathers Education at high school or lower level had significantly more
adjustment problems than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at college level had significantly more adjustment
than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
Students with Fathers Education at the master level have significantly more
adjustment problems than students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level.
It is important to know the global effect of the categorical variable Country of
Table 147.
Model
1
2
Std. Change
RR Square Adjusted
the
Estimate
R Square
F
Change Change
.411
.169
.122 7.58019
.169
3.607
.459
.211
.151 7.45657
.042
2.779
df1
15
5
df2
Sig. F
Change
266
.000
261
.018
Country of Origin significantly predicted adjustment problems.

Students from Africa had significantly more adjustment problems than students from
North American.
South America.
198
Europe.
Students from Middle East had significantly more adjustment problems than students
from North America.
The above multiple regression indicated that Resilience Characteristics, Gender,
Country of Origin, and Fathers Education significantly predicted adjustment problems.
The above three sets of multiple regression analyses all show that resilience
characteristics, Gender, Country of Origin, and Fathers Education were strong predictors
of adjustment problems. Also among the strong predictors, resilience characteristics on
the whole were stronger than Gender, Fathers Education, and Country of Origin.
199
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The previous chapter provides statistical analyses to explore the relationships among
resilience characteristics, background factors and adjustment problems. This chapter
summarizes research results, relates them to the findings from the literature review, offer
new findings, and provide explanations. Finally, recommendations are made to
universities, international students, and campus policy makers.
Statement of Purposes
The purpose of the study was to determine relationships among resilience
characteristics and background factors, determine relationships among resilience
characteristics and adjustment problem areas, evaluate relationships among adjustment
problem areas and background factors, and identify resilience characteristics and
background factors which significantly predict adjustment. Based on the statistical results
of this study, recommendations are offered for international students to help with their
adjustment.
Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Background Factors
In this study, resilience characteristics were introduced as new factors in the study of
adjustment issues of international graduate students. Therefore, it is important to explore
relationships between resilience characteristics and background factors, which have been
found to be correlated with adjustment.
Summary of Findings
Statistical analyses were carried out to determine relationships between resilience
characteristics and background factors by using three sets of international graduate
student response data: FSU data, GSU data, and the combined FSU and GSU data. The
following table summarizes the relationships among resilience characteristics and
background factors for FSU student responses.
Table 148.
Summary of Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Background Factors for
FSU Respondents.
Positive:
The
World
Age
International
Experience
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
X
X
200
Proactive

Positive:
The
World
Previous
Work
Experience
TOEFL
Length of
Stay at
Current Univ.
Length of
Stay in US
Gender
Perceived
Relevance of
Study
Community
of Origin
Country of
Origin
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Fathers
Education
Mothers
Education
Major
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive
TOEFL scores, Length of Stay in US, Gender, Relevance of Study, Community of
Origin, Marital Status, and Parents Education. However, certain resilience characteristics
were correlated with Age, Previous International Experience, Previous Work Experience,
Length of Stay at Current University, Country of Origin, Sources of Support, and Major.
The following table summarizes the relationships among resilience characteristics
and background factors for GSU student responses.
Table 149.
Summary of Relationship Among Resilience Characteristics and Background Factors for
GSU Respondents.
Positive:
The
World
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Age
International
Experience
Work
Experience
201
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive

Positive:
The
World
TOEFL
Length of
Stay at
Current Univ.
Length of
Stay in US
Gender
Perceived
Relevance of
Study
Community
of Origin
Country of
Origin
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Fathers
Education
Mothers
Education
Major
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive
X
X
X
X
X
GSU data shows that resilience characteristics were not correlated with Age,
Previous International Experience, Previous Professional Work Experience, Length of
Stay, Community of Origin, Country of Origin, and Mothers Education. However,
certain resilience characteristics were correlated with TOEFL scores, Gender, Perceived
Relevance of Study, Marital Status, Sources of Support, Fathers Education, and Major.
Although there were some differences in the correlations of FSU and GSU data, the
statistical findings from the two sets of data revealed that Sources of Support was
correlated with Positive: Yourself, and Major with Positive: The World. The different
correlations from the two sets of data may stem from the following reasons. First, GSU
respondents may not have been numerous enough to fully represent the GSU population.
Second, the differences were originated from different populations at the two universities.
and background factors for the combined FSU and GSU responses.
Table 150.
Summary of the Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Background
Factors for FSU and GSU Respondents.
Positive:
The
World
Age
Positive: Focused
Yourself
X
202
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized Proactive

Positive:
The
World
International
Experience
Work Experience
TOEFL
Length of Stay at
Current Univ.
Length of Stay in US
Gender
Perceived Relevance
of Study
Campus
Community of Origin
Country of Origin
Marital Status
Sources of Support
Fathers Education
Mothers Education
Major
Positive: Focused
Yourself
Flexible:
Thoughts
Organized Proactive
Flexible:
Social
X
X
X
X
Previous International Experience, Length of Stay at Current University and in US,
Gender, Campus, Community of Origin, and Parents Education. However, certain
resilience characteristics were correlated with Age, Previous Work Experience, TOEFL
scores, Perceived Relevance of Study, Country of Origin, Marital Status, Sources of
Support, and Major.
Among resilience characteristics, Focused was correlated with the largest number of
background factors, followed by Positive: Yourself, and Flexible: Social.
Conclusion
Comparing the summary table for FSU responses and the summary table for the
combined FSU and GSU responses, it can be seen that the correlations from FSU and
from FSU and GSU student responses were quite similar. The following table
summarizes the overlapping correlations identified by both FSU and the combined
FSU and GSU student responses.
Table 151.
Summary of the Overlapping Correlations Among FSU Responses and the Combined
FSU and GSU Responses.
Positive:
The world
Age
International
Experience
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
X
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
X
203
Proactive

Positive:
The world
Work
experience
TOEFL
Length of
Stay at
current Univ.
Length of
Stay in US
Gender
Perceived
Relevance of
Study
Campus
Community
of Origin
Country of
Origin
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Fathers
Education
Mothers
Education
Major
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
Flexible:
Thoughts
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive
The above table indicates that the overlapping correlations included Positive: The
World with Country of Origin and Major; Positive: Yourself with Country of Origin,
Sources of Support, and Major; Focused with Age, Previous Work Experience, Country
of Origin, and Sources of Support; Flexible: Thoughts with Country of Origin; Flexible:
Social with Country of Origin and Major; Organized with Age and Previous Work
Experience; and Proactive with Country of Origin. Among all the possible correlation
categories (7x16=112) among resilience characteristics and background factors,
correlations accounted for 13.4%.
Based on the summary of the above table, the following conclusions can be drawn.
First, individual resilience characteristics correlated with one to four background factors
out of sixteen background factors. Hence, as a total group, resilience characteristics were
only moderately correlated with background factors. Since some background factors are
closely related with experience, it might be concluded that resilience characteristics, as a
total group, were only moderately correlated with personal experience. This finding is in
conformity with the research of ODR that resilience characteristics are stable personal
characteristics at a point in time.
Second, each resilience characteristics was correlated with at least one of the
background factors. The resilience characteristic which was correlated with the largest
number of background factors was Focused, followed by Positive: Yourself. Hence,
resilience characteristics may vary with the change of the background factors. Since
204
background factors were closely related with ones experience, it may be inferred that
Focused and Positive: Yourself are the most easily changed resilience characteristics if
one is consciously involved in different experience to try to enhance resilience. The
findings above are also in conformity with the ODR findings that resilience
characteristics can be enhanced for the majority of people.
Third, six out of seven resilience characteristics were correlated with Country of
Origin. Analytical results of this study show that: Asian grouping of students had
significantly lower scores in Focused than African grouping of students; Asian grouping
of students had significantly lower scores in Flexible: Thoughts than Europeans grouping
of students; Asian grouping of students had significantly lower scores in Flexible: Social
than South American grouping of students; and Asian grouping of students had
significantly lower scores in Proactive than European and South American grouping of
students. ODRs findings are that resilience is consistent across countries except for
counties in which groups act as individuals as in Asian countries. The findings are in
conformity with the ODR finding that Country of Origin influences ones resilience
characteristics.
Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and Adjustment Problem Areas
It is important to see the correlations among resilience characteristics and adjustment
problem areas.
Summary of Research Findings
Correlations were carried out among resilience characteristics and adjustment
problem areas by using three sets of dataFSU, GSU, and the combined FSU and GSU
international graduate student responses.
The following table summarizes the correlation results for FSU respondents.
Table 152.
Adjustment Problems for FSU Respondents.
Positive: The
World
Admission
_
and
Selection
Orientation
_
Academic
Record
SocialPersonal
Living and
Dining
Health
Service
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
205
Organized
Proactive
_
_

Positive: The
World
Religion
_
Service
English
_
Language
Student
_
Activity
Financial
_
Aid
Placement
_
Service
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
Organized
Proactive
_
_
_
_
The above analyses show that all seven resilience characteristics had negative
correlations with adjustment problem areas, from three to eleven of the eleven adjustment
problem areas.
The following table summarizes relationships among resilience characteristics and
adjustment problems for GSU respondents.
Table 153.
Adjustment Problems for GSU Respondents.
Positive: The
world
Admission
_
and
Selection
Orientation
Academic
Record
SocialPersonal
Living and
Dining
Health
Service
Religion
Service
English
Language
Student
Activity
Financial
Aid
Placement
Service
Positive:
Yourself
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
_
_
_
Proactive
_
_
Organized
Note: _ indicates negative relationships
206
The above table shows that Focused, Positive: The World, and Flexible: Thoughts
were significantly negatively correlated with the majority of adjustment problem areas.
Positive: Yourself, Flexible: Social, and Proactive were significantly correlated with
some of the adjustment problem area. Organized was not significantly negatively
correlated with any adjustment problem areas.
Although there were a sizable number of overlapping correlations from the FSU and
GSU data, there were many differences in their correlations. One possible reason for the
difference may be that the number of GSU respondents was not large enough to be fully
representative of the GSU population. With a larger number of respondents from GSU,
the results from GSU might bear more resemblance to those from FSU data. Another
possible reason is that there might be differences between the FSU and the GSU student
populations.
and adjustment problem areas by using the combined student responses from FSU and
GSU.
Table 154.
Adjustment Problems for the Combined FSU and GSU Respondents.
Positive: The
World
Admission
_
and
Selection
Orientation
_
Academic
Record
SocialPersonal
Living and
Dining
Health
Service
Religion
Service
English
Language
Student
Activity
Financial
Aid
Placement
Service
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
Organized
_
Proactive
_
_
_
Note: _ indicates a negative relationships.
207
The above table shows that the majority of resilience characteristics had strong
negative relationships with adjustment problem areas. Positive: The World, Flexible:
Thoughts, and Focused were significantly negatively correlated with all the eleven
problem areas. Flexible: Social were significantly negatively correlated with ten out of
eleven areas , while Positive: Yourself was significantly negatively correlated with nine
out of eleven areas. Proactive was significantly negatively correlated with seven out of
the eleven areas, while Organized with five out of the eleven areas.
Conclusion
The following table summarizes the overlapping correlations among resilience
characteristics and adjustment problem areas between FSU results and FSU and GSU
results.
Table 155.
Summary of the Overlapping of Significant Pearson Correlations Among Resilience
Characteristics and Adjustment Problems between FSU results and FSU and GSU
results.
Positive: The
World
Admission&
_
Selection
Orientation
_
Academic
_
Record
Social_
Personal
Living and
_
Dining
Health
_
Service
Religion
_
Service
English
_
Language
Student
_
Activity
Financial
_
Aid
Placement
_
Service
Positive:
Yourself
_
Focused
_
Flexible:
Thinking
_
Flexible:
Social
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Organized
Proactive
_
_
_
_
_
_
Note: _ indicates a negative relationships.
Among resilience characteristics, Flexible: Thoughts, and Positive: The World were
negatively correlated with all of the eleven problem areas; Focused with ten out of the
eleven areas; Positive: Yourself with nine out of the eleven areas; Flexible: Social with
eight out of the eleven areas; Proactive with five out of the eleven areas; and Organized
with three out of the eleven areas. Among all possible correlation categories (7x11=77)
208
among resilience characteristics and adjustment problem areas, correlations accounted for
74%, which appears to be a usually high percentage.
Among adjustment problem areas, Admission and Selection, Academic Record, and
English Language problem areas were negatively correlated with all seven resilience
characteristics; Social-Personal, and Student Activity with six resilience characteristics;
Living and Dining and Health Service problem areas with five resilience characteristics;
Orientation and Placement with four resilience characteristics; and Financial Aid problem
area with two resilience characteristic.
The above negative correlations indicate that a student with high levels of resilience
tends to have fewer adjustment problems. The findings are in conformity with the initial
hypotheses. Resilience characteristics gauge ones ability to cope with change. Adjusting
to university life in the U.S. is a major change for international students. Hence, it is
natural to find that international students who are more resilient tend to adjust better, as
indicated by their fewer adjustment problems.
In conclusion, since resilience characteristics were significantly highly negatively
correlated with adjustment problem areas, they are important factors in the study of
adjustment problems for international graduate students.
Relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors
This section explored the relationships among adjustment problems and background
factors. Following that, comparisons were made between the findings from this studys
literature review and those from the statistical results of this study.
Summary of Statistical Results of This Study
Statistical analyses were carried out to determine the relationships among adjustment
problem areas and background factors by using three sets of dataFSU, GSU, and
combined FSU and GSU international graduate student responses.
The following table summarizes relationships among adjustment problems and
background factors.
Table 156.
Summary of Relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors
for FSU Respondents.
Adm
Age
International
Experience
Work
TOEFL
TimeC
TimeUS
Gender
Relevance
Community
Marital Stat
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
X
X
X
X
X
209
Fin
Pla

Adm
Ori
Mothers
Education
Fathers
Education
Major
Country of
Origin
Aca
Soc
Liv
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
Fin
Pla
X
X
Note: Adm refers to Admission and Selection

Eng refers to English Language
Stud refers to Student Activity
Fin refers to Financial Aid
Pla refers to Placement Service
The above table shows that adjustment problems areas were not correlated with Age,
Previous Work Experience, Length of Stay at Current University, Community of Origin,
and Mothers Education. Among adjustment problem areas, the English Language
problem area was correlated with the largest number of background factors, followed by
the Academic Record and Student Activity problem area. The above table also shows that
among all possible correlation categories (11x15=165), the found correlations accounted
for only 7.9%.
The following table summarizes the relationships among adjustment problem areas
and background factors for GSU respondents.
Table 157.
Summary of relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors
for GSU Respondents.
Adm
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
Age
International
Work
TOEFL
TimeC
TimeUS
Gender
Relvance
Community
Marital
Status
Heal
Relig
Eng
X
Stud
Fin
X
X
210
Pla

Adm
Ori
Aca
Sources of
Support
Mothers
Education
Fathers
Education
Major
Country of
Origin
Soc
Liv
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
Fin
Pla
Previous International Experience, Length of Stay, Perceived Relevance of Study,
Community of Origin, Marital Status, Sources of Support, Mothers Education, Major,
and Country of Origin. Among adjustment problem areas, the English Language problem
area was correlated with the largest number of background factors, followed by the
Financial Aid problem area. The above table also shows that among all possible
correlation categories (11x15=165), 7.9% correlations were found.
Comparing FSU statistical results with GSU statistical results, it can be seen that
there are only a few overlapping correlation areas and many overlapping non-correlated
areas. Results from the two data sets agree that adjustment problems were not correlated
with many background factors. As to correlations, there were only five overlapping
correlations: the English language problem area with TOEFL; Health Service problem
area with Gender; Living and Dining problem area with Fathers Education; Financial
Aid problem area with Fathers Education, and Student Activity with Country of Origin.
The following table summarizes the relationships among adjustment problems and
background factors by using the combined FSU and GSU data.
Table 158.
Summary of Relationships Among Adjustment Problem Areas and Background Factors
for Combined FSU and GSU Respondents.
Adm
Age
International
Work
TOEFL
TimeC
TimeUS
Gender
Relvance
Campuses
Community
Marital Status
Sources of
Support
Mothers
Education
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
X
Heal
Relig
Eng
X
Stud
Fin
Pla
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
211

Adm
Fathers
Education
Major
Country of
Origin
Ori
Aca
Soc
X
Liv
X
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
Fin
X
Pla
Previous International Experience, Length of Stay at Current University, Community of
Origin and Major. Because these background factors were not correlated with adjustment
problems, they were not included in the multiple regression studies. Also, the Mothers
Education background factor was excluded from the multiple regression analyses. The
reason is that although adjustment problems were correlated with both Mothers
Education and Fathers Education, Fathers Education correlated more with adjustment.
Among adjustment problem areas, the English Language problem area was
correlated with the largest number of background factors, followed by the Living and
Dining problem area, Social-Personal, and the Financial Aid problem area.
Among the background factors, Country of Origin was correlated with the largest
number of adjustment problem areas, followed by Gender, Campus, and Fathers
Education.
Conclusion
The following table summarizes overlapping of correlations among adjustment
problems and background factors between FSU data results and FSU and GSU data
results.
Table 159.
Summary of Overlapping Correlations Among Adjustment Problem Areas and
Background Factors Between FSU and FSU and GSU Data Results.
Adm
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
Age
International
Experience
Work
Experience
TOEFL
TimeC
TimeUS
Gender
Relvance
Campuses
Community
Marital
Status
Sources of
Support
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
X
X
X
X
212
Fin
Pla

Adm
Mothers
Education
Fathers
Education
Major
Country of
Origin
Ori
Aca
Soc
Liv
Heal
Relig
Eng
Stud
Fin
Pla
The above table indicates that the English Language problem area was correlated
with four out of sixteen background factors; Living and Dining and Financial Aid
problem areas were correlated with one background factors; and Academic Record,
Health Service, and Student Activity were correlated with one background factor.
Admission and Selection, Orientation, Social-Personal, Religious Service, and Placement
Service were not correlated with any of the background factors.
Among the background factors, Fathers Education and Country of Origin were
correlated with the largest number of adjustment problems. The above table also indicates
that among all the possible correlation categories (11x15=165) among adjustment
problem areas and background factors, correlations accounted for only 6%.
Several conclusions can be drawn in this area. First, although adjustment problems
were correlated to background factors, the correlations among them were not of a high
percentage. This conclusion is in conformity with the findings from the literature review.
The literature review often gave contradictory results concerning the relationship between
adjustment and a certain background factor. Sometimes one can only conclude certain
trends rather than definite results concerning the relationships between background
factors and adjustment. Second, some adjustment problem areas, such as the English
Language, Living and Dining, Social-Personal, and Financial Aid problem areas, were
correlated with more background factors than the other problem areas. Hence, it is easier
to anticipate problems of the English, Living and Dining, Social-Personal, and Financial
Aid areas for international students with certain background factors, and to possibly
provide remedies in advance.
Third, adjustment problems were correlated much better with resilience
characteristics than with background factors. Since there is no literature concerning the
effects of resilience characteristics on the adjustment of international graduate students,
this finding is a major new finding. Resilience characteristics are ones abilities to cope
with change, and adjusting to the study life in the U.S. is a major change; hence, it is not
surprising that resilience characteristics were more correlated with adjustment problem
areas than any background factors.
Comparison of Literature Review Findings with Statistical Findings
Age. The analyses in the previous chapter indicated that younger students had more
problems in Living and Dining while they had fewer problems with the English language.
These results are in conformity with the findings from the literature review.
Part of the findings are in conflict with the initial hypotheses that age is negatively
correlated with adjustment problems among international graduate students. Research
213
findings showed that even among graduate students, younger students still have more
problems in Living and Dining. Hence, the ability to deal with problems in the Living
and Dining problem area is closely tied with ones past experience, the less the
experience, the greater the difficulties.
Previous International Experience. Statistical results from this study indicated that
previous international experience was not correlated with any adjustment problem areas.
The finding is in conflict with the findings from the literature review. One possible
explanation to this finding is that each country is different from one another. The
experience in other countries may not necessarily contribute to the adjustment while
studying in the U.S. Another possible explanation is that previous international
experience as a visitor may not necessarily contribute to the study life in the U.S. Further
research needs to be done in this area.
Length of Stay. Statistical results from this study indicated that length of stay was not
correlated with any adjustment problem areas. The statistical result was in conflict with
literature findings. Further research needs to be done in this area.
English Proficiency Level. Statistical results from this study indicate that TOEFL
scores are negatively correlated with English Language problems. This statistical result is
in conformity with literature findings. TOEFL scores, however, were not found to be
correlated with any other problem areas (another new finding) even though literature
review strongly showed that English Proficiency is conducive to adjustment in many
areas. Hence, although TOEFL test is a valid tool to indicate ones English abilities to
some extend, it was not a tool to fully represent ones English Proficiency Level.
Gender. The analyses in the previous chapter indicated that female students had
significantly more difficulties in the Health Service Problem area. In general, female
students had more difficulties than male students. The research result is in conformity
with literature findings.
Campus. The adjustment problem areas faced by FSU students in the order of most
severe to least severe were as follows: Financial Aids, Placement Services, English,
Social-Personal, Health Services, Admission and Selection, Living-Dining, Student
Activities, Orientation Services, Academic Records, and Religion. The problem areas
faced by GSU students in the order of most severe to least severe were as follows:
Financial Aids, Placement Services, Living and Dining, Social-Personal, Health Service,
Admission and Selection, Orientation Services, English, Student Activities, Academic
Records, and Religion.
Comparing the two lists of problem areas from the most severe to least severe, some
commonalities are easily found. Students from the two universities put the following
problem areas in the same orderFinancial Aids, Placement Services, Academic
Records, and Religion, the first two the most severe and the last two the least severe. The
differences were in Living and Dining, English Language, and Financial Aid problem
areas. It might be concluded that students from the two universities experience similar
214
kinds of problems. The conclusion was in conformity with the literature review finding
that students from school of similar sizes may face similar kind of difficulties.
Community of Origin. Statistical analyses from this study indicated that Community
of Origin was not correlated with any adjustment problem areas. The finding was in
conflict with the literature review. The reason for the difference might be because the
majority of the respondents came from urban backgrounds, and students from rural
backgrounds may have had very limited chance to study in the U.S.
Marital Status. The analyses in the previous chapter indicated that married students
accompanied by spouses had more problems in English than single students. Since the
literature review in this area yielded conflicting results, it is impossible to decide whether
the conclusion is in conformity or in conflict with literature review, and it may be a new
finding.
Sources of Support. Statistical analyses from this study indicated that Sources of
Support was correlated with problems in the English Language problem area. This
finding is in conformity with literature review.
Parents Education. The analyses in the previous chapter indicated that Mothers
Education was not correlated with any adjustment problem areas. It was a little surprising
to find out that Mothers Education was not correlated with any adjustment problems.
Further research needs to be done in the area.
Fathers Education was found to be related to adjustment. Fathers Education was
correlated with problems in Living and Dining and Financial Aid problem areas.
Specifically, students with Fathers Education at the Ph.D. level had fewer difficulties
than students with Fathers Education at the masters level in Living and Dinning and
Financial Aid. With the above findings, it may be concluded that students with Fathers
Education at higher level had fewer adjustment problems than students with Fathers
Education at a lower level. The research results are in conformity with the literature
findings.
Country of Origin. The analyses in the previous chapter indicated that Country of
Origin was correlated with Academic Record, English Language, and Student Activity.
The finding concerning English Language was in conformity with the literature, while the
findings concerning Academic Record and Student Activity were new findings. The
analyses also indicated specially that: the Asian grouping of students had significantly
more problems in English than the European grouping of students; Middle Eastern
students had significantly more problems in English than the European grouping of
students, and Middle Eastern students had significantly more problems in Student
Activity than the European grouping of students and the South American grouping of
students. The research result concerning the Asian grouping of students is in conformity
with the literature review findings; while research results concerning the Middle Eastern
grouping of students are new findings.
To conclude, this research showed that the Asian and Middle Eastern grouping of
students have more problems. This study did not find specific problem areas for students
coming from the Europe, North America, and South America grouping of students
215
Major. Statistical results indicated that Major was not correlated with any adjustment
problems. The finding is in conflict with the literature review. The explanation for the
conflict is that respondents of this survey were concentrated on certain majors and areas
The following table provides a summary of the comparison of findings from this
study with those from the literature review.
Table 160.
Comparison of Findings from this Study with Those from the Literature Review.
Background Factors
Age
In conformity with
Literature
1.Younger students had
more problems in Living
and Dining problem
area.
2. Younger students had
fewer problems with
English Language.
Previous International
Experience
TOEFL scores,
however, were not
found to be correlated
with other problem
areas.
English Proficiency
Level
TOEFL scores were

negatively correlated
with English Language
problems.
Gender
Female students had

significantly more
difficulties in Health
Students from the two
universities experienced
similar kinds of
problems.
Community of Origin
Community of Origins
was not correlated with
any adjustment problem
areas.
Marital Status
Sources of Support
New Findings
Previous international
experience was not
correlated with any
adjustment problem
areas.
Length of stay was not
correlated with any
adjustment problem
areas.
Length of Stay
College size
Difference from
Literature
Married students
accompanied by spouses
had more problems in
English than single
students.
Sources of Support was
correlated with
problems in English
Language problem area.
216

Background Factors
Parents Education
Country of Origin
Major
In conformity with
Literature
Students with Fathers
Education at higher
levels tended to have
fewer problems than
students with Fathers
Education at lower
levels.
Difference from
Literature
New Findings
Mothers Education was
not correlated with any
adjustment problem
areas.
Students with Fathers
Education at Ph.D. level
had fewer difficulties
than students with
Fathers Education at
masters level in Living
and Dinning, and
Financial Aid
Overall, country of
origin was correlated
with Academic Records
and student activity.
Overall, country of
origin was correlated
with English Language.
Specifically, Asian
students had
significantly more
problems in English
than European students.
Specifically, Middle
Eastern students had
significantly more
problems in English
than European students,
and Middle Eastern
students had
significantly more
problems in Student
Activity than European
students and South
American students.
Major was not
correlated with any
Summary
Adjustment problems
were correlated much
stronger with resilience
characteristics than with
background factors.
Predicting Adjustment
The previous statistical analyses indicated that resilience characteristics were
significantly negatively correlated with adjustment problems. Also, background factors
such as Gender, Perceived Relevance of Study, Pervious Work Experience, Age,
Campus, TOEFL, Time in US, Marital Status, Country of Origin, Fathers Education, and
Sources of Support were correlated with adjustment problem areas. In this section, results
of multiple regression analyses are summarized to reveal predicting variables for
adjustment.
217
Summary of Findings
Three sets of multiple regression analyses were carried out. In the first set, there were
eleven multiple regression analyses. In each multiple regression analysis, the dependent
variable was one adjustment problem area, and the independent variables were the
resilience characteristics and the background factors mentioned above. In the second set
of multiple regression analyses, there were also eleven multiple regression analyses. In
each multiple regression analysis, the dependent variable was one adjustment problem
area, and the independent variables were resilience characteristics in one variable (the
sum of seven z-scores of resilience characteristics), and the background factors. In the
third set of multiple regression analysis, there was one multiple regression analysis. The
dependent variable was adjustment problems in one variable (sum of z scores of the
eleven problem areas), and the independent variables were resilience characteristics in
one variable and background factors.
The following table summarizes the predicting variables for adjustment problem
areas from the first set of multiple regression analyses.
Table 161.
Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems (Set One)
OPTIMISM
ESTEEM
FOCUS
COGFLEX
SOCIAL
ORGANIZE
PROACTIVE
Gender
Relevance
Work
Age
Campus
TOEFL
Time US
Marital
Status
Country of
Origin
Fathers
Education
Sources of
Support
Adm
Ori
X*
X
X
X*
X
Aca
Soc
X
X
Liv
Heal
X
Relig
Eng
Stud
X
X
Fin
Pla
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: Positive: Yourself positively predicts adjustment problems, while the rest
resilience characteristics negatively predict adjustment problem areas.
The above table shows that Focused negatively predicted six problem areas; Flexible:
Thoughts negatively predicted five problem areas; Fathers Education predicted five
problem areas; Country of Origin predicted four problem areas; Gender predicted three
218
areas; Positive: Yourself predicted two problem areas; Positive: The World negatively
predicted one problem area; and Flexible: Social, Campus, TOEFL, Sources of Support
each predicted one problem area.
Among resilience characteristics, except for Positive: Yourself, the other resilience
characteristics negatively predicted adjustment problems.
The following table summarizes the predicting variables for different adjustment
problems for the second set of multiple regression analyses
Table 162.
Summary of Predicting Variables for Different Adjustment Problems (Set Two).
Resilience
Characteristics
Adm
X
Gender
Ori
Aca
X
Soc
X
Liv
X
Heal
X
Relig
X
Eng
X
Stud
X
Fin
X
Pla
X
Relevance
Work
Age
Campus
TOEFL
Time US
Marital Status
Country of
Origin
Fathers
Education
Sources of
Support
The above analyses indicate that resilience characteristics significantly negatively

predict ten problem areas out of eleven (For the Orientation problem area, the overall
relationship is insignificant). Gender significantly predicted five out of eleven problem
areas, Fathers Education predicted four, and Country of Origin significantly predicted
three areas. Campus, TOEFL, and Sources of Support significantly predict one of the
The following table summarizes the results from the third multiple regression
analyses.
219
Table 163.
Summary of Predicting Variables for Adjustment Problems (Set Three).
Adjustment Problems
X
X
Resilience Characteristics
Gender
Relevance
Work
Age
Campus
TOEFL
Time US
Marital Status
Country of Origin
Fathers Education
Sources of Support
X
X
The multiple regression analysis from the third set indicates that Resilience
Characteristics, Gender, Fathers Education, and Country of Origin significantly
predicted adjustment problems.
Conclusion
The above three sets of multiple regression analyses show that resilience
characteristics, Gender, Country of Origin, and Fathers Education were strong predictors
of adjustment problems. Also, among the strong predictors, resilience characteristics on
the whole were stronger than Gender, Fathers Education, and Country of Origin, and
resilience characteristics negatively predicted adjustment problems.
The first set of multiple regression analyses indicated that among resilience
characteristics, strong predictors were Focused and Flexible: Thoughts, followed by
Positive: Yourself. Positive: The World and Flexible: Social were not strong predictors
compared with the previous three, while Organize and Proactive did not predict
adjustment problems. The analyses also indicated that only Positive: Yourself positively
predicted adjustment problem areas. Here are some of the possible explanations for the
above findings. First, coming into a new environment is a major change involving
countless new things to be attended to. If a student diverts his or her attention to every
details of life, it is impossible to concentrate on major issues which are critical to
adjustment. A student with high abilities on Focused is able to concentrate his or her
attention on important goals and is less likely to be diverted. Hence, Focused is the
strongest predictor for adjustment of international graduate students. Second, a student
with Flexible: Thoughts is willing to look at a situation from multiple perspectives.
Coming into a new culture, a student is sure to encounter numerous culture differences. If
a student is flexible in thinking and realizes that there are no right or wrong things
concerning cultural differences, he or she is then willing to accept the cultural differences
and make adjustment to the new surroundings. On the contrary, if a student is not flexible
enough, he or she may stick to his old cultural habits and, as a result, suffer a miserable
time in adjustment. Hence, Flexible: Thoughts is very important for international
students to adjust. Third, Positive: Yourself helps students to be confident. It is
unexpected that Positive: Yourself significantly predicted adjustment problems, implying
220
that overly confident students tend to encounter more adjustment problems. It might be
explained that an overly self-confident student may be inclined to find his or her way out
rather than ask for help. Hence, Positive: Yourself may, in fact, cause the student more
adjustment problems. Fourth, Positive: The World abilities enable one to concentrate on
positive rather than negative aspects. Coming into a new environment, a student is sure to
suffer difficulties, uncertainties and even misunderstandings. Positive: The World enables
a student to have hope and concentrate on the bright side of their life, which is conducive
for adjustment. Hence, Positive: The World is important for adjustment. Five, Flexible:
Social is the ability to use others help. Coming into a new environment, a student is sure
to face a lot of difficulties. If he or she can draw on others help, it is definitely to his or
her advantage. Hence, it is no surprise that Flexible: Social predicts adjustment.
However, compared with the above-mentioned four resilience characteristics, Flexible:
Social is not a strong predictor. One possible explanation is that the American society is
an individualist society, and one has to be self-reliant for most of the time. Another
possible explanation is that studying in the U.S. is personal work rather than group work
most of the time. Six, Proactive is the ability to take risks at a time of uncertainty.
Coming from a foreign country, a student usually has very limited knowledge about the
US. At this time, a student usually has limited knowledge to make decisions. Risk taking
becomes, potentially, a gamble since there is no educated guess involved. Hence,
Proactive does not predict adjustment. Seventh, Organized is the ability to give structures
to ambiguity. It is unexpected that Organized does not significantly negatively predict
adjustment problem areas. One possible explanation is that Organized is more useful
when a person becomes familiar with the environment rather than at the beginning when
coping with the new situations.
There are some commonalities and differences between the findings of this study on
the use of resilience characteristics to predict adjustment of international students and the
findings of Bryants study on the use of resilience characteristics to predict the
adjustment of American freshmen students. Some of the above findings are in conformity
with the findings from Bryants study, while some are in conflict. As Bryant (1995)
studied the resilience characteristics in the adjustment of American freshmen students, he
found that students who were high on the Focused dimension of the PRQ seemed to be
interested in exploring their new environment (p.65). He also found that the Proactive
subscale seems to be least useful in predicting the behavior of students (p.66). The
above two findings are in conformity with the findings of this study.
Bryant also found that Flexible: Thoughts, Positive: The World, and Organized are
important to predict the adjustment of American freshmen students. The findings from
this study indicated that important predictors for the adjustment of international students
were Focused, Flexible: Thoughts, Positive: Yourself, and Positive: The World. The
observed differences in the results of the two studies are predicting power of Focused,
Organized, and Positive: Yourself on adjustment. The differences may stem from the
differences in the two kinds of adjustment.
There is a caution in using the results of predicting variables. In the above multiple
regression analyses, the overall model fit is low, none is more than 24%. Hence further
studies would be helpful in confirming the results for predicting variables.
221
Summary of Conclusions
The study explored the relationships among resilience characteristics and background
factors, among resilience characteristics and adjustment problem areas, and among
adjustment problem areas and background factors. Lastly, the study tried to identify
resilience characteristics and background factors that predict adjustment.
The study found that all resilience characteristics were correlated with one to four
background factors out of sixteen background factors. Resilience characteristics, which
were correlated with the largest number of background factors was Focused, followed by
Positive: Yourself.
Resilience characteristics were highly negatively correlated with adjustment problem
areas. Among all possible correlation categories for resilience characteristics and
background factors, correlation categories among resilience characteristics and
adjustment problem areas accounted for 74%. The high correlation among resilience
characteristics and adjustment merit the further study of resilience characteristics in the
adjustment of international graduate students.
Adjustment problem areas were not highly correlated with background factors.
Among all the possible correlation categories for adjustment problem areas and sixteen
background factors, correlations accounted for only 6%. Among all the background
factors, Country of Origin and Fathers Education were correlated with the largest
number of adjustment problem areas. The moderate correlation among adjustment
problem areas and background factors explained why there may be a lot of conflicts in
relationships between background factors on adjustment. Also, although Country of
Origin has been extensively studied by previous studies, Fathers Education is seldom
touched in the area.
The multiple regression analyses, which were used to identify the predicting
variables for adjustment, confirmed the findings from the correlation studies. The
multiple regression analyses showed that resilience characteristics, Gender, Country of
Origin, and Fathers Education were strong predictors of adjustment problems. Also,
among the strong predictors, resilience characteristics on the whole were stronger than
Gender, Country of Origin, and Fathers Education.
The above statistical results indicated that resilience characteristics are central to the
study of the adjustment issues of international graduate students. Since traditional
background factors, which have been extensively studied previously, are only moderately
correlated with adjustment problems, they probably should be made secondary in the
future study of adjustment issues for international graduate students. However, among
background factors, the effect of Fathers Education on adjustment should be further
studied.
Problems Identified by Students
In the survey, international students also identified adjustment problems they have
encountered.
FSU Respondents
1. Insufficient legal services
222
2. Relationship with friends and family in my home country

3. Unconcerned attitudes of Americans
4. Safety concerns of walking from school to home at night
5. Commercialization in the US
6. Courses are too academic
7. Unsatisfied with health insurance plan
8. No opportunity to learn culture shock
9. No free writing center
10. Parents and marriage
11. Language barrier
12. Cope with American students in group projects
13. Students and advising professor
14. High stress and pressure faced by international students.
15. People here may not be aware that culture difference is not right or wrong
16. Car insurance
17. Rejection in credit cards
18. Arrogance and ignorance of some people towards my country
19. May go to prison for childish reason; discrimination by officers
20. No freedom in choosing courses
21. Different styles in speaking and different accent
22. Legal and tax issues
23. Loneliness
One prominent issue repeatedly mentioned by international graduate students is lack
of services for legal issues. One student wrote that people may go to prison for a childish
reason. From that statement, it can be inferred that certain behavior, which students do
not regard as illegal, may break the law in the U.S. Hence, it is importance to remind
students about some particular possible illegal behaviors at the very beginning.
International students at FSU also mentioned the arrogance and ignorance of some
people in the US. Some on these remarks may be true, while others may just stem from
being international students. On the one hand, it is important to create a friendly
environment for international students. On the other hand, it may be helpful to remind
international students that it is excusable that the host people do not understand
international students as there are students from so many countries and regions. If they
want to be understood, they must help by participating in and making their culture better
known in the community.
GSU Respondents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Laziness of workers in the service industry

Lifestyle in the U.S.
Speak up in class
Surprised that the campus has police
Away from home and handle everything on ones own
High costs of childcare
Indifferent attitudes of professors and administrators
A balance between life and work
223
9. Culture differences
Most of the comments of GSU students centered around cultural issues not only
about general cultural differences, but also about differences in the academic culture.
Students responses suggest that it is important to teach international students early about
the culture differences both in daily life and in the academic community.
Recommendations to Universities
Based on statistical analyses of survey data gathered from this study and on the
problems identified by international students, the following recommendations are made
to universities to help international graduate students better adjust to university life in the
U.S.
1. Provide training for staff, who work with international students, on resilience.
Their knowledge on resilience will benefit international students.
2. Ask international students to complete resilience questionnaires to help them
identify their strong and weak resilience characteristics.
3. Offer lectures on resilience and provide professional advice to international
students on how to enhance resilience.
4. Identify resilient students and ask them to tell of their experiences to other
international students.
5. Focus on groups which tend to have more adjustment problems. Statistical
analyses indicated that Asian students tend to have lower resilience scores than students
from other continents. It appears that it would be beneficial to help Asian students in
particular to improve their resilience characteristics. Statistical analyses also indicated
that: female students tend to have more problems than males students; students with
Fathers Education at lower levels tend to have more problems than students with
Fathers Education at higher levels; Middle Eastern students tend to have more
difficulties in English and Student Activity; Asian students tend to have more difficulty
in English; African students tend to have more problems in Living and Dining. In order to
effectively reduce adjustment problems, it is reasonable to have specially designed
seminars for female students, for students with Fathers Education at lower levels, and for
African and Asian students.
6. Provide help to students on legal issues. Since different countries may define legal
and illegal actions differently, it is important to warn students that certain actions which
may be legal in other countries may not be legal in the U.S. Also, connect students to
legal professionals when they are in need of legal consultants.
8. Offer international students special preparation on the general culture in the U.S.
and the academic culture at university. Such efforts might include seminars by
professionals, international students telling of their own experiences in the U.S., and
friendship ties with local people.
Recommendation to International Students
Based on the above statistical analyses and the problems identified by respondents,
the following suggestions are made to international students.
224
1. Start the adjustment process well before ever arriving in the U.S. For example, one
can try to improve his or her English proficiency before leaving the home country. Also,
one can gain knowledge about the general and academic cultures in the U.S.
2. Bear in mind that adjustment is also a growing process. A student will become
stronger and more capable after going through the adjustment process.
3. Be mentally and emotionally prepared to encounter many difficulties both in life
and in academic studies. Since studying in the U.S. is a major change in life, there are
sure to be many difficulties. Some of the difficulties, such as these in English language
and Living and Dining, may be easily anticipated, while difficulties in the academic
culture may not be easily anticipated. People usually function better when they can
anticipate whats coming. Consequently, being mentally prepared for all kinds of
difficulties is the first step to deal with those difficulties. This is the so called learning
before change, a major principle for dealing with change. (Lick & Kaufman, 2000).
4. Understand that resilience characteristics are better correlated with adjustment
than most other factors. Knowledge about resilience characteristics helps to enhance
resilience.
5. Try to learn to become focused on priorities. Coming to study in the U.S. from a
foreign country, a student is sure to encounter numerous new things. Learning to become
focused on major goals is crucial to successful adjustment. One good way to enhance
ones abilities to focus on priorities is to work and learn from someone who is capable of
setting and following priorities.
6. Learn to become more flexible in thinking. Try to understand there is no right or
wrong in cultural differences. The ability to view cultural differences from multiple
perspectives is an important step before adjustment. One good way to enhance ones
flexibility in thinking is to work and learn from someone who is flexible in thinking.
7. Ask rather than figure things out. Although it is important to be self confident, it is
also very important to ask and observe than only figuring things out on ones own, as
totally different rules might be applied in the U.S.
8. Try to learn to be more focused on the positive rather than the negative aspects of
life. Coming to study in a totally new culture, a student is sure to encounter setbacks. At
such times, optimistic attitudes help one to have hope and keep up high morale, and,
therefore, become better adjusted. One good way to enhance ones positive perspective
on life is to work and learn from people with a positive perspective.
9. Set up social networks to ask for help to overcome difficulties. One sure way to set
up useful social networks is to offer help to others when they need help. In the meantime,
one should also try to bear in mind that the American society is an individualist society,
being self reliant is very important.
10. Female students should get mentally prepared for encountering more difficulties
than male students. Male students should also know that female students may encounter
more difficulties and should offer help to female international students.
11. Students with Fathers Education at lower levels should get mentally prepared
that they may encounter more difficulties than students with Fathers Education at higher
levels.
12. Students from the Asian grouping of countries should bear in mind that they may
face more difficulties than students from Europe, North America, and South America
because of the following reasons. First, Asian students tend to have lower resilience
225
scores than students from these places. Second, cultural differences are bigger for Asian
students than for these students. Third, Asian students tend to have more English
problems than these students. Consequently, Asian students should pay special attention
to enhance their resilience and should use their social network with other Asian students
and other international students to deal with their difficulties.
13. Students from the Middle Eastern grouping of countries should bear in mind that
they may face more difficulties in English Language and Student Activity than students
from Europe, North America, and South America.
14. Students from the African grouping of countries should bear in mind that they
face more difficulties in Living and Dining.
15. Reach out to the local community, and try not to feel offended if the host people
do not understand the cultural backgrounds of international students. If international
students reach out to the community and introduce their own culture, they and their
fellow international students will have a better chance to be understood. Students should
take initiative and be proactive rather than hope to be understood passively.
16. Try to find groups to identify with, and then work with these groups to deal with
difficulties and problems.
17. Actively engage in all kinds of activities organized and offered by the
International Center to gain cultural knowledge, set up social networks, practice English,
spread culture knowledge of their own culture, and so on.
Suggestions to Campus Policy Makers
Universities should provide training to staff on resilience, ask students to fill out
resilience questionnaires, and provide professional advice to students on how to enhance
their resilience. Because of the close relationships between resilience and adjustment, it is
worthwhile to allocate money and time to assist students to enhance their resilience. It
may be beneficial to closely work with ODR Inc. to develop strategies to help enhance
the resilience of international students in the most effective way.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of the study is that GSU respondents may not be as representative as
FSU respondents. If GSU respondents were as representative as FSU data, more
conclusions might be able to be drawn on the similarities and differences of two
universities. In that case, the results might have had more of a general application to other
international student populations.
Another limitation is that only quantitative methods are used in this study.
Qualitative interviews might have added to and deepened insights into the understanding
of adjustment issues of international graduate students.
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is several folds. Although adjustment issues for
international students have been studied quite extensively, there are still many important
gaps. The major values of this study are:
226
1. This study introduced resilience characteristics in the study of the adjustment issues of
international graduate students for the first time and identified predicting variables for
adjustment. The results of this study indicate that resilience characteristics are highly
negatively correlated with adjustment problem areas and resilience characteristics are
better predictors for adjustment problems than most background factors. The study results
merit further research on the effects of resilience characteristics on the adjustment of
international students.
2. The relationships among resilience characteristics and adjustment, as well as among
resilience and background factors, were explored in great detail. With such knowledge, it
is possible to understand resilience characteristics of international students and to design
ways to improve the resilience of international students to help them deal with the change
they experience in international education.
3. The study identified that background factors such as Gender, Fathers Education, and
Country of Origin predicted adjustment. Although Gender and Country of Origin have
been extensively studied in the adjustment of international students, Fathers Education
has not been extensively studied in the adjustment of international students.
4. The study confirmed many conclusions from early studies. (See Table 157).
5. The study identified several new findings (See Table 157).
Future Research Area
On the basis of this study, future studies are suggested in the following areas.
1. Future research could be conducted to study the relationships between resilience
characteristics and adjustment for international undergraduate students. There are some
big differences between international graduate and undergraduate students. In general,
international undergraduate students face more adjustment problems than international
graduate students. Resilience characteristics might be even more important for
international undergraduate students.
2. A future study could be conducted to compare the influence of resilience
characteristics on the adjustment of international students and the adjustment of
American freshmen students. Although the adjustment of international graduate students
and adjustment of American freshmen students all involve dealing with new
environments, different resilience characteristics may be more useful than others for the
two different kinds of adjustment.
3. Similar research to this study could be done using a population in several universities,
which could potentially give results that are more generalizable and more applicable to
other universities.
4. Future studies could also include qualitative methods for additional understanding and
depth. Focus groups and case studies could be helpful in revealing more information.
5. Future studies could also explore the influence of international students socialeconomic backgrounds relative to their adjustment. Although the social-economic
backgrounds have been studied quite extensively for American college students, this area
has not been studied in detail for international students.
227
Appendix A
Approval from the FSU Human Subject Committee
Florida State
UNIVERSITY
Office of the Vice President
For Research
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2763
(850) 644-8673 FAX (850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM (for change in research protocol)
From: the Human Subjects Committee
Date: 4/15/2003
Jing Wang
179 Moore Dr. Apt 9
Tallahassee, FL 32310
From: David Quadagno, Chair
Dept: Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
Re: Use of Human subjects in Research
Project entitled: A Study of adjustment of international graduate students at American
universities, including both traditional factors and resilience characteristics
The memorandum that you submitted to this office in regard to the requested change in your
research protocol for the above-referenced project have been reviewed and approved Thank
you for informing the Committee of this change.
A reminder that if the project has not been completed by 1/2/2004, you must request renewed
approval for continuation of the project.
By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is
reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving
human subjects in the department, and should review protocols of such investigations as
often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution
and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Protection from Research Risks
The Assurance Number is IRB00000446..
APPLICATION NO. 2002.644
Cc: Dr. Dale Lick
chgapp.doc
228
Appendix B
Approval for Using PRQ from ODR Inc.
June 24, 2003

To whom it may concern:
Jing Wang, as a representative of Florida State University and under the supervision of
Dr. Dale Lick, has my permission to use the Personal Resilience? Questionnaire in the
research project she has proposed for her dissertation. Only sample items from the scale
may be included in any write up of the research.
Sincerely,
Linda L. Hoopes, Ph.D.
Research Director
ODR?, Inc.
229
Appendix C
Approval for Using MISPI from Dr. Porter
JOHN W. PORTER, Ph.D.

CEO, Urban Education Alliance, Inc., and
President Emeritus, Eastern Michigan University
April 10, 2002
Jing Wang
179 Moore Drive
Apt. #9
Tallahassee, FL 32310
Dear Jing Wang:
I just received your letter dated February 28, 2002. With this
acknowledgment, I do hereby grant you permission to use the Michigan
International Student Problem inventory (MISPI). You may adjust the
instrument consistent with your research design, if necessary.
As you may know; the original research was conducted on the campus at
Michigan State University over 40 years ago. It is gratifying to know that the
instrument continues to be v/ell received throughout the United States. Over
100 studies have been reported to our office in this regard. I have enclosed a
copy of the most recent published references. Other references are available
upon request.
Also enclosed is a copy of the original instrument and handbook for your
reference. Best wishes for a successful completion of your research project,
and I look forward to receiving a copy of the results.
Sincerely,
John W. Porter
230
Appendix D
MODIFIED MISPI
1. Evaluation of my former school credentials

2. Concern about value of a U.S. education
3. Choosing college subjects
4. Treatment received at orientation meetings
5. Unfavorable remarks about my home country
6. Concept of being a international student
7. Frequent college examinations
8. Compulsory class attendance
9. Writing or typing term (semester) papers
10. Concern about becoming too westernized
11. Insufficient personal-social counseling
12. Being in live with someone
13. Taste of food in United States
14. Problems regarding housing
15. Being told where one must live
16. Poor eye sight
17. Recurrent headaches
18. My physical height and physique
19. Religious practices in United States
20. Attending church socials
21. Concern about my religious beliefs
22. Speaking English
23. Giving oral reports in class
24. Ability to write English
25. Regulations on student campus activities
26. Treatment received at social functions
27. Relationship of men and women in U.S.
28. Lack of money to meet expenses
29. Not receiving enough money from home
30. Having to do manual labor (work with hands)
31. Finding a job upon returning home
32. Not enough time in U.S. for study
33. Trying to extend stay in United States
34. Getting admitted to U.S. colleges
35. Registration for classes each term
36. Not attending college of my first choice
37. Relationship with international student advisor
38. Leisure time activities of U.S. students
39. Law enforcement practices in the U.S.
40. Competitive college grading system
41. Understanding how to search electronic databases
231
42. Insufficient advice from academic advisor

43. Being lonely
44. Feeling inferior to others
45. Trying to make friends
46. Costs of buying food
47. Obtaining credit cards
48. Not being able to room with U.S. student
49. Hard to hear
50. Nervousness
51. Finding adequate health services
52. Finding worship group of own faith
53. Christianity as a philosophy
54. Varity of religious faiths in U.S.
55. Reciting in class
56. Understanding lectures in English
57. Reading textbooks written in English
58. Dating practices of U.S. people
59. Being accepted in social groups
60. Not being able to find dates
61. Saving enough money for social events
62. Immigration work restrictions
63. Limited amount U.S. dollar will purchase
64. Becoming a citizen of the United States
65. Changes in home government
66. Desire to not to return home country
67. Understanding college catalogs
68. Immigration regulations
69. Lack of knowledge about U.S.
70. Campus size
71. U.S. emphasis on time and promptness
72. Understanding how to use the library
73. Too ma ny interferences with studies
74. Feel unprepared for U.S. college work
75. Concerned about grades
76. Sexual customs in United States
77. Homesickness
78. Feeling superior to others
79. Learning to drive cars
80. Distances to classes from residence
81. Relationship with roommate
82. Dietary problems
83. Need more time to rest
84. Worried about mental health
85. Having time to devote to own religion
86. Spiritual versus materialistic values
87. Doubting the value of any religion
232
88. Understanding U.S. slang

89. My limited English vocabulary
90. My pronunciation not understood
91. Activities of International Houses
92. U.S. emphasis on sports
93. Problems when shopping in U.S.
94. Finding part-time work
95. Unexpected financial needs
96. Money for clothing
97. Uncertainties in the world today
98. Desire enrolling at another college
99. U.S. education not what was expected
100. Differences in purposes among U.S. colleges
101. Difference in U.S. and home education systems
102. Not being met on arrival at camp us
103. College orientation program insufficient
104. Trying to be student, tourist and ambassador
105. Attitude of some students toward international students
106. Doing laboratory assignments
107. Insufficient personal help from professors
108. Relationship between U.S. students and faculty
109. U.S. emphasis on personal habits of cleanliness
110. Not feeling at ease in public
111. Attitudes of some U.S. people to skin color
112. Paying bills
113. Changes in weather conditions
114. Taking care of children
115. Feeling under tension
116. Service received at health center
117. Health suffering due to academic pace
118. Criticisms of home land religion
119. Accepting differences in great religions
120. Confusion about religion and moral in U.S.
121. Insufficient remedial English services
122. Having a non-English speaking roommate
123. Holding a conversation with U.S. friends
124. Activities of international student organizations
125. Lack of opportunities to meet more U.S. people
126. Concern about political discussions
127. Costs of an automobile
128. Finding employment between college terms
129. Finding jobs that pay well
130. Insufficient help from placement office
131. Staying in U.S. and getting a job
132. Wonder if U.S. education useful at home
233
Appendix E
Summary Table of Existing Research on Adjustment Related Factors
Age
Authors
Significant problem
areas for younger
students
Adelegan and
Park (1985)
studied Black
and Arabic
African
students.
Older African
students had
greater difficulty
making the
transition from their
home culture to that
of the United States
than did younger
students (p.507).
Cheng 1999
Significant problem areas for

older students
Older students had

significantly more problems in
English language.
Foreign students who were
more than 30 years old
encountered more major
academic problems than
students less than 30 years
old (p.11).
Han (as cited

in Lee et al,
1981)
Lesser ,1998
Ninggal, 1998
No significant
difference between
older and younger
students
Age was not a

significant predictor of
adjustment.
It can be inferred
that younger
(younger than 20)
Malaysian students
experienced more
stress than older
ones (Older than
26) in Perceived
Discrimination,
Homesickness,
Perceived Hate,
Perceived Fear,
Cultural Shock,
Guilt
234
Age continued.
Authors
Significant problem
areas for younger
students
Olaniran
(1993)
Shabeeb 1996

older students
There was a positive
association between age and
foreign students social
difficulties. The conclusion
that could be drawn from this
finding is that social
difficulties experienced by
foreign students in social
situations calling for
intrapersonal decisions
intensify with age (p.80).
Younger Saudi and

Arabian Gulf
students more
problems in
admission, livingdining, and
placement services
Sharma ( as
cited in Lee et
al 1981)
Xia 1991
No significant
difference between
older and younger
students
Sharma found that

age upon arrival in the
U.S. had little effect on
foreign student
problems (p.11).
Most
undergraduate
Asian students
were below 25.
Asian students
below 25 had more
problems in 8
problem areas:
AdmissionSelection,
Orientation
Services, SocialPersonal, LivingDining, Religious
Services, Student
Activities, and
Placement
Services.
Within the graduate

students, the group of 25
years or younger had the
fewest adjustment problems
(p76). Graduate Asian
students between 26-31
years of age more problems
than those below 25 years of
age in the English language
area.
235
Length of Stay
Authors
Significant problems
areas for students who
stayed shorter
Significant
problems areas
for students who
stayed longer
Cheng 1999
Students who stayed

shorter (less than 6
months) experienced
significant more
problems than those
who stayed longer in
Social Personal and
Living-Dining problem
areas.
In the English
Language and
Placement Service
Problem area,
(more than 48
months) students
experienced
slightly more
problems than
(less than six
months) students
(p.74).
Klineberg &
Hull, 1979
Porter 1966
Evidence on the
effect of length of
time in a host
country is
conflicting,
although there is
some indication
that the longer a
student is in the
host country the
fewer problems the
student is likely to
have (as cited in
Schram and
Lauver, 1988,
p.147).
Foreign students
on campus for
thirteen months or
longer checked
more problems
than those foreign
students on
campus for one
year or less (p.8).
236
No Significant
difference
between
students with
different length
of stay
Conclusion
Students
who stayed
at USD for
more than
three years
experienced
less
difficulty
adjusting
than
students
who stayed
at USD for
three years
or less
(p.91).
Length of Stay continued.

Authors
stayed shorter
Shabeeb
1996
Saudi and Arabian Gulf

students who stayed
longer experienced more
difficulties in all of the
11* areas in MISPI.
Significant
problems areas
for students who
stayed longer
Shahmirzadi
1989
No Significant
difference
between
students with
different length
of stay
There is no
significant
difference
between
Middle
Eastern
students who
stayed in the
U.S. for one
year or less
and those
who stayed
for two years
or more,
There are no
significant
differences
between the
numbers of
problems
reported by
the students
on the
Michigan
International
Student
Problem
Inventory
based on the
number of
years they
have stayed
in the U.S.
(p.75).
237
Conclusion
Length of Stay continued.

Authors
stayed shorter
Xia. 1991
Asian students who had

been in the U.S. six
months or less
expressed significantly
more problems with the
English Language than
those who had been in
the U.S. more than three
years those who
had stayed one year or
less experienced
significantly more
difficulties than those
who had stayed more
than three years in five
problem areas:
Academic Advising and
Record, Social-Personal,
Living-Ding, English
Language, and Student
Activities. (p.112).
Significant
problems areas
for students who
stayed longer
No Significant
difference
between
students with
different length
of stay
Conclusion
* Note: Eleven Problem areas in MISPI

Admission and selection, Orientation service, Academic record, Social-Personal,
Living and Dining, Health Service, Religious Service, English Language,
Student Activity, Financial Aid, Placement Service.
238
Gender
Authors

female students
Aydin, 1997
International female graduate

students reported higher
levels of anxiety, and
marginally higher levels of
depression than male
subjects, while men had
higher scores on personal
control and initiative (p.85).
(p.84).
Cheng 1999
Church,
1982; Pruitt,
1978
areas for male
students
Male students
experienced
significantly more
problems than female
students in the
following problem
areas: Admission
Selection, Orientation
Service, SocialPersonal, English
Language, Student
Activity, Financial Aid,
and Placement
Service.
Although Owie
(1982) discovered no
relationship between
degree of alienation
and sex, others have
suggested that
female students are
apt to report more
problems adjusting to
life abroad than are
their male
counterparts (as cited
in Schram and
Lauver, 1988, p.147)
239
No significant
difference between
gender
Gender continued.
Authors

female students
areas for male
students
No significant
difference between
gender
Fidora, 1989
For Malaysian female

students, frustration was
more related with perceived
discrimination.
Significant more female than
male students reported that
independence was their
greatest adjustment they
made in the United States.
Malaysian female students
more likely reported lack of
sufficient transfer credits as
the reason for additional time
of degree completion.
For Malaysian male

students, frustrating
time was more likely
because of failing
exams and poor
English skills.
Malaysian male
students reported
required language
courses as the
reason for additional
time of degree
completion.
Fidora did not find

significant difference
between Malaysian
male and female
students in academic
achievement, in
educational
contentment and
satisfaction, and in
overall acculturation
related variables
(such as adjustment
and coping, happiest
and most frustrating
moments, health
status, frequency of
contact with home,
amount of contact
with American home
life, main method of
transportation,
number of TV hours
per week, campus
employment, etc.)
Lee et al,
1981
Lee et al. (1981) summarized

the literature in the field and
concluded that the results of
studies concerning the
relationship between sex and
problems encountered in the
U.S. concur that females
encounter more problems
than males (p.12).
240
Gender continued.
Authors

female students
Manese,
Sedlacek,
and Leong,
1988
In terms of self-perceptions,
women (international
undergraduates) expected to
have a harder time than men
(international
undergraduates) adjusting to
the university, indicated they
were more easily
discouraged when things did
not work out, saw
themselves as less likely to
act on strong beliefs, and
were less likely to believe
they were viewed as leaders
(p.25).
In some areas, sex may be
a more powerful influencing
variable than being a
foreign student (p.27).
Mallinckrodt
and Leong
(1992)
Comparisons were also

made between international
women and international
men. Women were
significantly more depressed,
more anxious, and more
likely to report poorer
relations with faculty
members than were men, but
they reported better
communication and cohesion
support in their families than
did male international
graduate students (p.74).
areas for male
students
For international
graduate students,
relations with faculty
members were
particularly beneficial
foe men (p.74).
For international graduate

students, tangible support,
relations with other students,
and curriculum flexibility
seemed to be most beneficial
for women (p.74).
Porter 1966
Female foreign students

checked more problems than
males (p.8).
241
No significant
difference between
gender
Gender continued.
Authors

female students
areas for male
students
Shabeeb
1996
Saudi and Arabian Gulf

female students more
problems in the area of
academic records
Saudi and Arabian

Gulf male students
more problems in
English language and
placement services
Shahmirzadi ,
1989
Xia 1991
Among Middle
Eastern Students
male students
reported significantly
more problems than
did females in all the
problems of the
MISPI (p.72).
Breaking down
problems into
different categories,
Middle Eastern male
students reported
significantly more
problems than did
females in
orientation.
Female Asian students more
difficulties in the Academic
Advising and Record area
242
No significant
difference between
gender
Countries of Origin
Countries of
Origin
Asian
Asian
Asian
African
Central/South
American
and Western
countries
Significant problems areas for students from

different countries
According to Xia (1991), Indian students
expressed significantly fewer problems in the
English Language and Academic related problem
areas Japanese student expressed
significantly fewer problems in social and financial
related areasChinese students had
significantly more problems in Placement
Services (p.111).
The most troublesome problems experienced by
the Asian students were in the areas of English
Langue, placement services, and financial aid
(p.120).
Konyu-Fogel (1993) discovered that international
students from different countries differ significantly
in terms of academic status (undergraduate or
graduate), and English proficiency level. He also
found that in terms of academic adjustment
difficulties, students from Japan reported greatest
difficulties while students from India reported least
difficulties.
Their finding reaffirms that students from Asian
countries practically struggle to U.S. college life
(Abe, Tabot, &Geelhoed ,1998, p.545).
Both methods depicted the same types of
adjustment difficulties encountered by African
students, some of which include initial academic
and feeding difficulties, discrimination and racism,
social isolation and loneliness, homesickness,
problems with cold weather, and understanding
and being understood by Americans (NebedumEzeh, 1997, p.94).
In light of the impact of nationality on adjustment,
the Central/South American subjects and subjects
from the Western countries both showed higher
levels of social adjustment than the Far East
group (Aydin ,1997, p.85).
Hull, 1978
No Significant difference
He pointed out that the

greater the differences
between a students
home culture and the
host culture, the more
difficulty the student will
have in adjusting to the
latter. Therefore, nonEuropeans from rural
areas are more apt to be
alienated than are urban
European students. (as
cited in Schram and
Lauver, 1988, p.147).
243
Country of Origin continued.

Countries of
Origin
Significant problems areas for students from

different countries
Malaysian
students
Feeling homesick was the main concern to Malay ,

Chinese, and Indian groups at Western Michigan
university in in Perceived Discrimination,
Homesickness, Perceived Hate, Perceived Fear,
Cultural Shock, Guilt
(p.102). Among Malaysian students, ethnic Malay
students experienced more stress in Perceived
Discrimination, Perceived Hate, Homesickness,
Perceived Fear, and Cultural Shock than the other
two groups. Colonization might be the reason for
the effect. (Ninggal, 1998)
Surdam
and Collins
,1984
"Students from outside the Western Hemisphere

experienced significantly more difficulties than did
those from Western Hemisphere nations" (p.243).
Stafford,
Marion, and
Salter (1980)
studied
adjustment of
international
students at
North
Carolina
African students had the greatest overall level of

adjustment difficulty, while South/Central American
students reported the lowest overall level of
difficulty (p.41).
Single students from India and Pakistan reported
that their biggest problem area was social
relationships with the opposite sex. Homesickness
and difficulty in obtaining suitable housing were
most problematic for those from the Middle East
and North Africa, while future vocational plans and
social relationships with members of the opposite
sex proved most difficult for students from the
Orient. Students from South and Central American
indicated that their most difficult areas of
adjustment were homesickness and obtaining
suitable housing. English language,
homesickness, and obtaining suitable housing
were identified by Southeast Asian students as
their most difficult adjustment areas. (p.41-42).
Olaniran
(1993)
No Significant difference
Taken as a whole these

results indicate that
cultural similarity reduces
social difficulty
experience of a
sojourner (p.81).
244
Academic Level
Authors
areas for
undergraduate
students
Chen 1999
Graduate students
experienced
significantly more
problems than
undergraduate
students in the
following problem
areas: Social
Personal, Religious
Service, and Student
Activity.
Graduate students
were significantly
higher on
intrapersonal social
difficulty than
undergraduate
students More
specially, graduate
foreign students
experience more
social difficulties than
their undergraduate
counterparts although
the effects was only
true for intrapersonal
situations (p.80).
Olaniran (1993)
Porter 1966
Undergraduate
foreign students
check more problems
than graduate
students (p.8).
Schram and Lauver

1988
Shabeeb 1996
areas for graduate
students
Graduate status was

negatively correlated
with alienation.
Saudi and Arabian
undergraduate
students more
problems in
orientation service
245
Not Significant
difference between
academic level
Academic Level continued.

Authors
Stafford, Marion,
and Salter (1980)
Xia 1991
areas for
undergraduate
students
Undergraduates
(p=.05) greater levels
of difficulty than did
graduate students
with English
language, academic
course work, finances,
food, unfriendliness of
the community, and
maintaining cultural
customs (p.41).
areas for graduate
students
Asian undergraduate
students had
significant more
problems in the
following seven areas:
Admission-Selection,
Orientation Services,
Academic Advising
and Record, LivingDining, Health
Services, Student
Activities, and
Placement Services
In general, Asian
graduate students
faced fewer problems
and were more likely
o succeed
academically than
were their
undergraduate
counterparts (p. 134).
246
Not Significant
difference between
academic level
Marital Status
Authors
Significant problem
areas for single
students
Aydin, 1997
Married subjects
higher levels of
personal/emotional
adjustment than
unmarried subjects, as
well as a marginally
higher level of
academic adjustment.
They also reported
higher levels of social
support (p.83).
Adelegan and
Park (1985)
studied Black and
Arabic African
students.
Significant areas for

married students
Married[African]students
had greater difficulty
making a social transition
than did single students
(p.507).
Cheng 1999
Han (as cited in

Lee et al, 1981)
Klineberg & Hull,

1979: Pruitt, 1978
Pavri (as cited in

Spaulding &
Flack, 1976)
No significant
difference between
married and single
students
There were no
significant
differences in the
adjustment
problems between
single and married
international
students (p.69).
Unmarried foreign
students encountered
more major problems
than married students
(p.13).
There is evidence that
living with a spouse
decreases loneliness as
cited in Schram and
Lauver, 1988 ( p.147).
Married foreign students
tended to have more
problems than single
foreign students (p.39).
Shabeeb 1996
No significant
difference between
married and single
Saudi and Arabian
Gulf students
247
Marital Status continued.

Authors
Significant problem
areas for single
students
Significant areas for

married students
Shahmirzadi ,
1989
Xia 1991
No significant
difference between
married and single
students
No significant
difference between
single and married
students in the
problems they
reported.
Married Asian students

who were not
accompanied by their
spouses had
significantly more
problems in the
Admission Selection
area than those who
were accompanied by
their spouses and
children (p.111).
248
English Proficiency
Authors
Porter, 1966
Significant
Foreign students who
did not speak English
as a first preference
checked more
problems than those
who did speak English
as a first preference
(p.8).
Surdam and Collins

(1984)
"Students who
believed that their
English was adequate
on arrival were
significantly better
adapted than those
who believed it to be
inadequate" (p.243).
Not Significant
249
Sources of Support
Authors
Significant problem
areas for selfsupporting students
Cheng 1999
Halsz (as cited in

Spaulding & Flack,
1976)
International
students who had
scholarships or
assistantship
encountered less
problems and
concerns than student
relying on self-support
and family-support
(p.91).
Family-supported
students were less
successful than
sponsored students
(p.39).
Foreign students with
scholarships were
more successful than
those who were selfsupporting (p39).
Pavri (as cited in

Spaulding & Flack,
1976)
Shabeeb 1996
Xia 1991
Significant problem
areas for non-self
supporting students
Saudi and Arabian

Gulf students who
had scholarships
encountered more
problems in the areas
of admission,
academic records,
and English language
Asian students with
assistantship showed
significantly fewer
problems in eight
problem areas:
Admission-Selection,
Orientation Services,
Academic Advising
and Record, SocialPersonal, Living-Ding,
Health Services,
English Language,
and Student Activities
250
No significant
difference between
students with different
sources of support
Major
Authors
Significant problem
areas for students in
arts and humanities
Shabeeb 1996
Saudi and Arabian

Gulf students who
majored in fields
related to the arts and
humanities more
problems in the area
of health service
Asian students
majoring in an Artistic
field had significantly
more problems in the
English Language
than those majoring
in a Scientific field.
(p.112).
Xia, 1991
Significant problem
areas for students in
Science and
Engineering
However, Asian
students in a
Science fields had
significantly more
problems in Financial
Aid and Placement
Services than did
those in an Artistic
field.
251
No significant
difference between
students with
different fields of
study
Appendix F
First email to be sent by the International Center at FSU
Dear International Graduate Students,

Ms. Jing Wang, as part of her doctoral studies in higher education here at Florida State, is
trying to determine factors that significantly contribute to adjustment for international
students. She will gather her data from graduate international students both at FSU and
another institution.
I am hoping that a great number of FSU students will participate in this survey, as the
results will be valuable to the staff of the International Center and can help us better serve
and advocate on behalf of international students at FSU.
The survey is lengthy; however, I believe you will find it interesting and completing it
will give you a better understanding of critical adjustment issues and your general
abilities to cope with change. For more information and instructions, please read the letter
from Ms. Wang below.
Roberta Christie
Director, International Center
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Fellow Graduate Students:
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to request your participation in
my doctoral research. (I do not have your names and email addresses.) As
Ms. Christie said, I believe the results will be useful to you and to
Florida State administrators and faculty. Completing the survey will
take 30 - 50 minutes, but is easy to accomplish. Simply click on the link
below.
To show my appreciation, I will give each participant who completes the
survey either a Matroshka (a nesting Russian doll, with four layers) or
two pieces of beautiful Chinese paper cut art. As soon as you submit your
survey electronically and e-mail me (jww2096@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
(<mailto:jww2096@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>) your survey ID number (which will be
provided to you after you finish the survey), I will send the gift to the
address you designate and resilience scores showing your present general
abilities to deal with change. Since one kind of gift may run out quicker
than the other kind, please respond to the online questionnaire as quickly
as possible to ensure that you get the gift of your choice. Please click
on the following link for survey.
252
http://www.surveypro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=7167
Participation in this study is totally voluntary. If you choose not
to complete the online survey, there is no penalty. On the other hand,
there is no risk involved in filling out the questionnaire (and you'll
receive a gift and your resilience scores!). The results of the survey
will be confidential to the extent allowed by law. By filling out the
online survey, you give your consent to participate in the study. If you
have any questions, please email me or call me at 850-576-9286. You may
also reach my major professor Dr. Dale W. Lick at 850-553-4080. The
telephone number of the Human Subjects Committee is 850-644-8836.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
Sincerely yours,
Jing Wang
253
Second Email Sent by the International Center at FSU

PLEASE HELP!!!
(This email is for international graduate students only)
Dear Fellow International Graduate Students:
Earlier, the international center helped me to send an email concerning my dissertation
research survey for international graduate students at FSU. If you have completed the
survey, I really appreciate your help. Thank you! If you have not done so, please read the
following message and then assist me importantly with my research by completing the
survey below.
The benefits of my research study from these online surveys are several folds. First,
adjustment to American college life is of great importance to every one of us. The main
purpose of this study is to identify factors, which are significant to adjustment. With
such knowledge, a university can provide better services to international students in the
future. Second, if you complete this survey, you can get feedback on your personal
resilience scores, indicating your abilities to cope with change. With the idea of your own
resilience, you can set plans to improve your own abilities to cope with the new
environment and changing times. Third, to show my appreciation, I will give each
participant who completes the survey two pieces of beautiful Chinese paper cut art. As
soon as you submit your survey electronically and e-mail me
(jww2096@garnet.acns.fsu.edu) your survey ID number (which will be provided to you
after you finish the survey), I will send the gift to the address you designate and the
resilience scores showing your present general abilities to deal with change. Please click
on the following link for the survey:
http://www.surveypro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=7167
Participation in this study is totally voluntary. If you choose not to complete the online
survey, there is no penalty. On the other hand, there is no risk involved in filling out the
questionnaire (and youll receive a gift and your resilience scores!). The results of the
survey will be confidential to the extent allowed by law. By filling out the online survey,
you will help me greatly and give your consent to participate in the study. If you have any
questions, please email me or call me at 850-576-9286. You can also reach my major
professor, Dr. Dale W. Lick, at 850-553-4080. The telephone number of the Human
Subjects Committee is 850-644-8836.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
Sincerely yours,
Jing Wang
254
REFERENCES
Abe, J., Talbot, D.M., & Geelhoed, R.J. (1998) Effects of a peer program on
international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39(6), 539-47.
Adelegan, F. O., & Parks, D. J. (1985). Problems of transition for African students
in an Amerian University. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26(6), 504-508.
Al-Sharideh, K., & Goe, W.R. (1998). Ethnic communities within the university: An
examination of factors influencing the personal adjustment of international students.
Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 699-725.
Angelova, M. (1998). If you dont tell me, how can I know?: A case study of four
international students learning to write the U.S. way. (Eric Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 423 696.)
Aydin, F. ( 1997 ). Intercultural adjustment as predicted by attachment and
personality variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston.
Bryant, P.C. (1995). Predictive validity and test-retest reliability of a measure of
resilience. Unpublished masters thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Cheng, E. H-J. (1999). A study of international students adjustment problems at the
university of South Dakota. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South
Dakota.
Conner, D.R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers
succeed and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Dalili, F. (1982). The international student office at the University of Akron: From
people processing to people changing. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 226
683)
Dolan, D. L. (1997). Cultural adjustment of international University students to
American academic life: An interview study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kansas.
Fidora, C. A. (1989). Gender differences in the academic achievement and
acculturation of Malaysian students at California State University, Long Beach.
Unpublished masters thesis, University of California State University, Long Beach,
Long Beach.
255
Furnham, A. (1987). The adjustment of Sojourners. In Y.Y. Kim & W. B.

Gudykunst (Eds.) Cross-culture adaptation. New York: Sage.
Furnham, A. & Bochner, S. ( 1986 ). Cultural shock: Psychological reactions to
unfamiliar environments. New York: Methuen & Co.
Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Education research: Competencies for analysis and
application. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Gudykunst, W. (1985). An exploratory comparison of close intracultural and
intercultural friendships. Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 270-83.
Gullahorn, J.T., & Gullahorn, J.E. (1963). An extension of the U-curve hypothesis.
The Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33-47.
Han, H. Y. (1996). A study of the adjustment problems of Korean students in the
Pittsburgh area. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Hannigan, T. P. (1990). Traits, attitudes, and skills that are related to intercultural
effectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: A reviews of literature.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 89-111.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstedes cultural dimensions: An independent
validation using Rokeachs values survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15,
417-433.
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/statglos/sgzscore.htm
Hull, W. (1978). Foreign Students in the United States of America. New York:
Praeger publishers.
Huntley, H. (1993). Adult International Students: Problems of adjustment. (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 886)
http://www.fsu.edu/~fsu-isc/about_us/mission.html Accessing date: April 5, 2001.
Konyu-Fogel, G. (1993). The academic adjustment of international students by
country of origin at a land-grant university in the United States. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Lee, M. Y., Abd-Ella, M., Burks, L.A. (1981). Needs of foreign students from
developing nations at U.S. colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: National
Association for Foreign Students Affairs.
256
Leong, F. (1984). Counseling international students. Relevant resources in high

interest areas. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 250 649)
Lesser, E. L. (1998). Predicting adjustment to college: A comparison among
international and American students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Adelphi
University.
Levin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. Field theory in social science.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lick, D. W., & Kaufman, R. (2000). Change creation: The rest of the planning story.
In J. V. Boettcher, M.M. Doyle, & R. W. Jensen (Eds.) Technology-driven planning:
Principles to practice. Ann Arbor, MI : Society for College and University Planning.
Lin, G., & Yi, J.K. (1997). Asian international students adjustment: issues and
program suggestions. College Student Journal,31, 473-9.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian fulbright grantees
visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
Manese, J.E., Sedlacek, W.E., & Leong, F.T.L. (1988). Needs and perceptions of
female and male international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 16 (1), 24-29.
Milton, S. (1986). A sample size formula for multiple regression studies. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 50, 112-118.
National Science Foundation (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators 2002.
( http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm)
Nuss, E. M. (1996). The development of student affairs. In S.R. Komives, D.B.
Woodard, Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession
(pp.22-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Nebedum-Ezeh, G. C. (1997). An examination of the experiences and copying
strategies of African students at predominantly white institutions of higher education in
the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Amherst.
Ninggal, M. T. H. (1998). The role of ethnicity among international students in
adjustment to acculturative stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan
University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Opendoors (2002). http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/ Accessing date: Nov.18, 2002.
257
Opendoors (2001).
http://www.opendoorsweb.org/Press/International_Students_in_the_US.htm
Accessing date: March 14, 2002.
ODR (1995). Change resilience a cognitive resource approach. Unpublished Report
by ODR, Inc. at Atlanta, GA.
ODR (1996). Criterion-related validity of the personal resilience questionnaire.
Unpublished Report by ODR, Inc. at Atlanta, GA.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Olaniran, B.A. (1996). Social skills acquisition: A closer look at foreign students on
college campuses and factors influencing their level of social difficulty in social
situations. Communication Studies, 22, 72-88.
Pedersen, P. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist,
19(1), 10-58.
Perkins, C.S., Perkins, M.L., Guglielmino, L.M., & Reiff, R. F. (1977). A
comparison of the adjustment problems of three international student groups. Journal of
College Student Personnel,18(5), 382-388.
Porter, J. (1966). The manual of Michigan International Student Problem Inventory.
Unpublished Report by Urban Education Alliance, Inc. at Ann Arbor, MI.
Porter, J. (1962). Abstract: The development of an inventory to determine the
problems of foreign students. Unpublished Report by Urban Education Alliance, Inc. at
Ann Arbor, MI.
Pruitt, F. J. (1978). The adaptation of foreign students on American campuses.
Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors,
41, 144-147.
Rohrlich, B. & Martin, J. (1991). Host country and reentry adjustment of student
sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 163-182.
Robinson, J. (1992). International Students and American University culture:
adjustment issues. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 968)
Rea, L. M., & Parker, A. P. (1997). Designing and conducting survey research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
258
Sami, M. B. (1986). A model for orientation program of adjustment of foreign

students in American colleges and universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Vanderbilt University.
Schram, J.L. & Lauver, P.J. (1988). Alienation in international students. Journal of
College Student Development, 29 (2), 146-150.
Shabeeb, S. (1996). Saudi and Arabian gulf studets adjustment problems in Eastern
Washington. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gonzaga University.
Shahmirzadi, A. (1989). The self-perceived problems of Middle Eastern students
attending the George Washington university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George
Washington University.
Spaulding, S. & Flack, M. (1976). The worlds students in the United States. New
York: Praeger publishers.
Stafford, T. H., Marion, P. B., & Salter, M. L. (1980). Adjustment of international
students. NASPA Journal, 18(1), 40-45.
Surdam, J. C. & Collins, J. R. (1984). Adaptation of international students: A cause
for concern. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 240-245.
Terenzini, P.T. , Rendon L. I., Upcraft M.L., Millar,S.B., Allison,K.W., Gregg, P.L.,
Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college. Research in Higher Education,35(1), 57-73.
Tomkovick, C., Al-Katib, J., & Jones, S. I. (1996). An assessment of the service
quality provided to foreign students at U.S. business schools. Journal of Education for
Business, 71, 130-135.
Wang, Changhua (1993). Friendship patterns of Chinese students and their
adjustment in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Portland State
University.
Ward, C., Bochner, A., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock.
Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Xia, Zhi-Hua (1991). Asian students adjustment problems at the university of
Wisconsin-Madison. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin-Madison.
259
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Jing Wang received her undergraduate and graduate degrees from China, and then
worked at a faculty member for several years in Beijing before she came to study at
Florida State University. Besides teaching, she was also an experienced interpreter
between English and Chinese.
260

A Study of The Adjustment of International Graduate Students at A

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Study of The Adjustment of International Graduate Students at A

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Florida State University

The Graduate School

A Study Of The Adjustment Of International

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

A STUDY OF THE ADJUSTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL

A Dissertation submitted to the

I would like to express my deepest thanks and appreciation to my major professor,

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Approval from the FSU Human Subjects Committee

1. Dependent and Independent Variables for Multiple Regression Analyses

2. FSU Respondents Gender

3. FSU Respondents Original Places

4. FSU Respondents Marital Status

5. FSU Respondents Sources of Support

6. FSU Respondents Major

7. FSU Respondents Country of Origin

8. FSU Respondents Father's Education

9. FSU Respondents Mother's Education

10. FSU Respondents Average Age

11. FSU Respondents Previous International Experience and Professional Work

13. FSU Respondents TOEFL and GPA

14. GSU Respondents Gender

15. GSU Respondents Community of Origin

16. GSU Respondents Marital Status

17. GSU Respondents Sources of Support

18. GSU Respondents Major

19. GSU Respondents Country of Origin

20. GSU Respondents Father's Education

21. GSU Respondents Mother's Education

22. GSU Respondents Average Age

23. GSU Respondents Previous International Experience and Professional Work

25. GSU Respondents TOEFL and GPA Scores

26. Correlations Among Interval Variables (FSU)

27. Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU)

28. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (FSU)

29. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU)

30. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU)

31. Tukey Analyses

32. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU)

33. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU)

34. One-way ANOVA for Fathers Education (FSU)

35. One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (FSU)

36. One-way ANOVA for Major Fields of Study (FSU)

37. Summary of Significant Relationships Among Resilience Characteristics and

39. Independent Samples Test for Gender (GSU)

40. Independent Samples Test for Perceived Relevance of Study (GSU)

41. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (GSU)

42. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (GSU)

43. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (GSU)

44. Tukey Analyses

45. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (GSU)

46. One-way ANOVA for Father's Education (GSU)

47. Tukey Analyses

48. One-way ANOVA for Mothers Education (GSU)

49. One-way ANOVA for Major (GSU)

50. Summary of Significant Relationship Among Resilience Characteristics and

51. Correlations for Interval Variables (FSU and GSU)

52. Independent Samples Test for Gender (FSU and GSU)

55. One-way ANOVA for Community of Origin (FSU and GSU)

56. One-way ANOVA for Country of Origin (FSU and GSU)

57. One-way ANOVA for Marital Status (FSU and GSU)

58. One-way ANOVA for Sources of Support (FSU and GSU)